Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Argentina

Dr. David Owen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, can you help the House? Presumably you have not had any information from the Government about whether they wish to make a statement on our relationship with and arms sales to Argentina. Is it possible to apply for an emergency debate on this issue under Standing Order No. 10? If not, how is it possible for the House to discuss a most important issue regarding internatonal policy when it must have been well known to the Government that the Americans were intending to make a statement yesterday? The Americans did not offer a statement yesterday, nor have they done so today. We are simply receiving news management from No. 10. Does not the House have a right to make its views clear on this extremely important issue? How can we have a debate?

Mr. Speaker: I have not had any intimation from the Government that they wish to make a statement on this matter. The right hon. Gentleman has been here many years and will know that it is not possible to apply for a debate under Standing Order No. 10 on a Friday. There are other parliamentary ways in which to deal with this matter. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will do so next week.

Orders of the Day — Sex Equality Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Ms. Jo Richardson: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I count myself fortunate in having drawn a place in the ballot for private Members' Bills. I had thought about whether I should move the Second Reading from the Opposition Front Bench, as I now occupy an august position there. However, I decided that as this is a private Members' Bill I would introduce it from the Back Benches. I then considered whether I should introduce it from the Back Benches and then nip round to the Front Bench to answer myself. I am glad to see that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition is present, and I hope that he will make a sympathetic statement.
I am doubly fortunate in drawing a place in the ballot, as this is the second time since I entered the House in 1974 that I have been lucky enough to so. On a previous occasion, I introduced what became the Domestic Violence and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1976. It was a modest measure which helped battered women who suffered violence in the home. I was greatly assisted by the National Council for Civil Liberties. It has also helped me with this Bill. I was also assisted by the Lord Chancellor's Department as the Bill found favour with the Law Commission. This time, however, the Government have not volunteered any help. I hope that, when it receives a Second Reading the Government's draftsman will help to put it into its proper form.
I have been dependent once more on the NCCL for its great expertise and for the help with drafting that the lawyers it has been able to find have provided. I am indebted to it for the considerable work that it has done, especially in the past three months. We have drawn ideas and suggestions from many sources. They include the NCCL women's rights unit, the Equal Opportunities Commission—which has advanced much criticism of the way in which the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the Equal Pay Act 1970 have worked—the Trades Union Congress, some of its affiliated unions and the Labour party, which made a firm commitment to amend the Sex Discrimination and Equal Pay Acts in its manifesto al the recent general election. I have also been helped by the many women who have written to me about this issue and given me encouragement. The letters that I have received have been absolutely tremendous and very warming. I was heartened and pleased to receive a letter only a couple of days ago from the Greater London Council women's committee telling me that there is all-party support for the introduction of the Bill.
When people feel that the law is unfair, they are prepared to work to change it. All of us who have been associated with the Bill, including my hon. Friends, are committed to trying to change the law. None of us pretends that the Bill as drafted is perfect. It seeks to right many wrongs, but I have no doubt that there are some drafting defects in it. I have yet to read any Bill, whether it comes from the Front Benches or the Back Benches, that does not contain some drafting defects that can be put right in Committee.
As far as possible, we have tried to put the Bill into plain language. Not all Bills do that. I was interested to read a Home Office news release dated 1 December, which stated:
Home Office wins 'plain English' award".
The Home Office is one of the three Departments connected with sex equality legislation. I hope that it at least will welcome the plainer language in which we have drafted this legislation.
As the House well knows, private Members' Bills may not have as their prime purpose the spending of large amounts of public money, so I have been forced to leave out of the Bill some areas that I should like to have included, such as continuing discrimination in our social security laws and taxation. Also, I should like to have included the retirement age, which is at different levels for men and women. The official retirement age for men should be 60, not 65 as it is now. However, it is not possible to deal with that in the context of a private Member's Bill. I have therefore sought to cover those points by making it a duty of Government to ask each of their Departments to look at the legislation that already exists and legislation in draft to make sure that there is no discrimination in it. I hope that that will be one way in the next five years, which is the time limit that we have put in the Bill, of seeking to attain the objective of outlawing discrimination.
The first major Standing Committee on which I served in the House was that on the Sex Discrimination Bill. That Bill was a courageous attempt by the then Labour Government to make progress in women's equality, giving effect in Government terms to a number of attempts by private Members for some years before that. It was controversial. The Opposition, now the Government, fought against some of the provisions because they thought that they were unnecessary and went too far. My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromich, West (Miss Boothroyd) who was the Whip on that Bill, will remember that some of us on the Back Benches, notably my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhamption, North-East (Mrs. Short) and three hon. Members no longer with us—the late Millie Miller, Maureen Colquhoun and Rod MacFarquhar—were always jumping up and down from the Back Benches to try to make the legislation tighter than the Labour Government had drafted it. We drew attention to many shortfalls that have turned out to be all too true.
People's attitudes have changed. We feel that the time has come to move on and make the legislation better than it was. Groups of people and individuals have become more frustrated at what they see to be an unfair and unwarranted limitation on their rights as individuals, and the continuing domination by men, confirming the traditionally accepted role of women as dependants and the inferior sex.
Not only women feel degraded. A growing number of men—not enough, I am sorry to say—are beginning to feel offended too and realise that there are inequalities against which they must fight if they want to talk genuinely about equal rights. Those rights extend at the moment to only 48 per cent. of the population, the 48 per cent. who are men. The remainder of the population—the majority —continues to be discriminated against in many areas.
Women are increasingly the sole breadwinners in the household. That is due to single parenthood, divorce or

widowhood. There are nearly 1 million single-parent families, almost exclusively headed by women. One in every 10 children now comes from a single-parent household. The traditional household of Tory mythology, with the male breadwinner, his dependent wife and two children, now accounts for only 5 per cent. of our population. For those who are married and have children, the woman's earnings are increasingly crucial in boosting the family income. Sixty-two per cent. of all married women work and 54 per cent. of married women with children work. Without their earnings, there would be three times as many families in poverty.
In spite of the Equal Pay Act, most women do not get equal pay. The Equal Pay Act covered women who could compare their job with that of a man, or that of a man doing broadly similar work. That is fine for people such as teachers, civil servants, doctors and others who, like us, count their job as a profession rather than simply as work. Women who work rather than have a profession are at a disadvantage because in the main they are paid much less for playing an equally valuable role and making an equally valuable contribution to society. Women who work in industries and services and whose work force is dominated by women have no men with whom they can compare their work, and they are condemned to a lower rate of pay. The employers continue to pay that lower rate.
The Equal Pay Act does not help at all. Because the procedures for testing whether discrimination has occurred are difficult under the Equal Pay and Sex Discrimination Acts, the question of deciding which one to complain under is crucial. For example, a complaint about equal pay before one gets a job would be made under the Sex Discrimination Act. A complaint about equal pay after employment has to be made under the Equal Pay Act. It is ludicrous that the two Acts are not fused so that everyone can understand what is happening. That is why my Bill, in effect, amalgamates both Acts and tries to use the spin-off effect of one upon the other. Thus the problem of deciding which Act to use would not arise. Legal opinion has long held the view that the two Acts should be fused.
The Bill will simplify the legislation and introduce the concept of indirect discrimination, which is in the Sex Discrimination Act but not the Equal Pay Act. That means, for example, that for the first time part-time workers will be able to claim as of right parity of their hourly pay with that of full-time workers. That in itself will represent a big stride towards equal pay for women.
Over the past few months the House has heard a good deal about the concept of equal pay for work of equal value. The Government were taken to the European Court for not introducing that concept into our laws. The Government then consulted a large number of bodies, hardly any of which—so far as I am aware—supported the way in which the Government proposed to introduce the legislation. They disagreed both with the content of the legislation—the way in which the Government viewed the concept, as translated into law—and with the fact that it was to be introduced as regulations rather than as an amendment to the existing legislation. However, we debated the regulations towards the end of July, before the recess, and they were carried. The concept of equal pay for work of equal value is extremely important to hundreds of thousands of women who cannot claim equal pay because there is no man with whom they can compare their work.
The regulations finally went to the House of Lords at the end of July. They then mysteriously disappeared from the Order Paper at the last moment. The hearts of the women's circles leapt. We thought that their Lordships had discovered that the regulations were no good and that they would be brought back again to this House. However, after the recess they were reintroduced into the Lords, only to disappear from the Order Paper again. They were finally reintroduced and passed last Monday. However, in speaking to the motion
That the draft regulations laid before the House on 6th July be approved",
Lord McCarthy moved an amendment
that this House believes that the regulations do not adequately reflect the 1982 decision of the European Court of Justice and Article I of the EEC Equal Pay Directive of 1975.
That amendment was carried by four votes. The former Master of the Rolls, Lord Denning, said:
I am not sure whether it would not be better to throw them"—
the regulations—
out altogether and make those concerned think again so that we get something clear and intelligible which ordinary people and ordinary tribunals can understand."— [Official Report, House of Lords, 5 December 1983; Vol. 445, c. 902.]
What the Government have provided—and it will come into effect on 1 January — is unintelligible gobbledegook which will make it impossible for women to bring cases under the legislation in a meaningful way.
In clause 8 of the Bill, we have tackled the matter properly. We have set out simply and constructively how a woman can make a claim for work of equal value. There will be a number of different ways in which a woman will be able to show that her work is of equal value. She could rest her case on physical or mental effort, the training she has had, the stress that she undergoes, or the decision-making that she has to do. With the help of equality officers who would be appointed to help with the procedure, she would have a real opportunity to pursue her claim and make her employer give her equal pay for work of equal value. The procedure would be much simpler in every way, and I believe that women would benefit from it.
In the same area of low pay for women we have included provisions referring to homeworkers. Homeworkers are perhaps one of the most exploited sections of the community, and we probably do not realise the extent of that exploitation. We have tried to make it possible for homeworkers to claim pay equal to that of an employee working in a factory for the same firm. I am not an expert on homeworkers, but I understand that at present most of them have to regard themselves as self-employed. They therefore fall outside all the employment legislation and all the conditions which apply in an ordinary factory. Even if the Bill achieved nothing else, an attempt to end the exploitation of homeworkers would be of value.

Mr. Tony Marlow: I realise that the hon. Lady will not agree with me when I say that this is just one muddled measure in a muddled Bill, and that its effect would be to put a large proportion of homeworkers out of work. In using homeworkers, employers face considerable costs and difficulties. If they have to pay them as much as they would pay anybody else, they would not take them on. They will use the convenience of people who come to work.

Ms. Richardson: I do not understand what the hon. Gentleman means. If employers who had to pay proper

rates to homeworkers did not then take them on, presumably they would have to employ more people to do the same work. The hon. Gentleman is content to allow employers to continue to profit from paying scandalously low wages to people over whom they have no supervisory control. He said that I would not agree with him, and he was right.
The Bill is not only about women. It also seeks to correct some of the inequalities affecting men. I have already mentioned our difficulties about the retirement age. We have also included a statutory right to paternity leave. A growing number of men these days take a couple of weeks' leave when their spouse is having a child. We should encourage and applaud that trend. In most cases, the men have to take their annual leave, or part of it, or perhaps sick leave. No doubt some of my younger colleagues on both sides of the House have taken time off when their wives have had children. They have been lucky. They have simply had to tell the Whips what they intended to do. For most of those who are employed, it is not so easy. My friend, John Tilley, who used to represent Lambeth, Central, recently took two weeks off when his wife was having a child. He was able to do so without any loss of pay. Fathers should have a statutory right to be with their families, if they and the mothers wish it, in order to share in the birth.
The Bill tries to encourage a change of attitude and role. Under it, a mother who is returning to work will be able to swap her maternity leave with the father. If she wishes to return to work, or if it is better for her to return to work, he can assume her maternity rights and stay at home to look after the children.

Mr. Michael Howard: Perhaps the hon. Lady could help me with the provision in the Bill that provides for maternity leave. It is said to apply to
a male employee who is the father of a child which is expected to be or has been born, or who is living with the mother of such child.
If those people were not one and the same, could both claim paternity leave? If both of them could not do so, which one could? If more than one male employee was living with the mother at the time of the birth, would they all be entitled to paternity leave?

Ms. Richardson: That is a point that can be raised in Committee. There may be such cases, and they should be discussed in much greater detail. However, that is a matter for the Committee. The principle behind the clause is that the father of the child should have the right to have leave to be present when the child is born. To agonise about who is the husband and who is the father is irrelevant now.
The Bill reduces the qualifying period for maternity rights from two years to six months. At the time of the Employment Protection Act 1975, it was suggested that two years was too long a time for women to have to be in employment before being able to claim maternity rights. That has been proved to be true. Many women find that they are excluded from their rights because they have changed jobs. Therefore, we have reduced the period to six months. After all, under the present law, if they have changed jobs, they may be unable to claim, although they still need maternity pay.
I understand that the maternity pay fund has some reserves, because many women have been unable to claim. Therefore, it would not cost the Government much to


accede to my request. The Employment Act 1980 put great pressure on those women who wanted to claim that they should be reinstated in their jobs. The present procedure is extremely complicated, and militates against women returning to work when they want to do so. The number of times that they have to tell their employers that they are returning to work is ludicrous. The Bill tries to simplify that and to make the requirements much easier for them.
There is considerable discrimination in occupational pension schemes, and I have had to have a look at that issue with a fresh eye. It causes great resentment and hardship that the conditions for men and women are not the same. In all occupational pension schemes men can ensure that their widows benefit, but sometimes women cannot ensure that their widowers will benefit, although women have to pay the same contribution. Recently, I received a letter from the GLC.

Mr. John Powley: Another one!

Ms. Richardson: Yes, another one. I am a Member of Parliament for London. I hope that hon. Members will listen, because this is an interesting point. The GLC tells me that it has four women fire fighters and that they pay the same percentage of their salary into the occupational pension scheme as male fire fighters. However, under the existing scheme, which has been there for donkey's years, they are not allowed to nominate their husbands as the beneficiaries, should they be killed in a fire. However, male fire fighters can nominate their wives. The GLC has become concerned about that, and has taken up the matter. As recently as late November an exchange took place—I do not know whether it was in discussion or correspondence—with Lord Elton, Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department. Although Lord Elton accepted that it was unfair, he was reluctant to agree to a change, because it would affect other occupational pension schemes in the public service. Thus, the discrimination is widespread and should be dealt with. We have said that the Government should ensure that pension schemes do not discriminate against anyone.

Mr. Marlow: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms. Richardson: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, but I should like to press on a little, because the Bill is complicated and it would be unfair to the House if I did not explain its contents.

Mr. Frank Dobson: No explanation would get into the hon. Gentleman's crust.

Ms. Richardson: In addition to what I have already said, the Bill tries to tighten up loopholes in existing employment legislation. A decision in 1980 by the employment appeals tribunal laid down that a pregnant woman could not compare herself with a man in a sex discrimination claim. The woman in question at the time of the case claimed that she had been sacked because she was pregnant, and that she had therefore been less favourably treated than a man. Obviously, there is no such thing as a pregnant man.

Ms. Harriet Harman: Some Conservative Members look as though they are pregnant.

Ms. Richardson: Some of my female friends think that if men were able to become pregnant they would

understand women's problems much better. However, pregnancy is a physical condition. From time to time men also suffer from physical conditions which necessitate time being taken off work. There is no justification for sacking a woman, or denying her employment simply because she needs time off work during her pregnancy. Men and women who are off work because of a physical condition should be treated similarly.
My next point may sound trivial, but it is important. The Bill puts an obligation on employers to display an approved summary of the Act on their premises, just as they have to display the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act and the Factory Act. I hope that that is a stride forward, which will enable women workers to know of their rights and duties. It also brings us into line with the 1975 EEC directive on equal pay.
We have also included a provision to ensure that British-based companies do not think that they can discriminate against foreign-based employees if their contract of employment with them was made in the United Kingdom. I understand there has been some abuse in that respect in the past.
The Bill outlaws discrimination in employment on the ground of homosexuality. There have been many disgraceful cases against both male and female homosexuals purely on the ground that they are homosexuals. No one can have any complaint about being denied a job because they are not qualified, or do not have the skills needed. However, to deny people the right to jobs purely because they are homosexual is wrong. The parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe said in 1981 that member states
should assure equality of treatment, no more, no less, for homosexuals with regard to employment pay and job security, particularly in the public sector.

Mrs. Anna McCurley: Does the hon. Lady think that there is a good case for knowing what the sexual proclivities of an individual are if he or she is to be a teacher in, for example, a residential school?

Ms. Richardson: Generally speaking, there is more danger to young girls from the sexual proclivities of hetrosexual men than there is likely to be from a few homosexuals. I am not saying that that is always right, but it seems to be wrong to take sexuality into account. If people misbehave, they misbehave, but such discrimination is a disgrace in the way that it is now practised and we propose to outlaw it by means of the Bill.
I thought that the goods and services provisions of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 were pretty watertight, but although the Act makes it unlawful to offer a woman goods or facilities that are less favourable than those offered to a man, some companies ask still for a male guarantor. Do they do this when men ask for some goods or facilities for which a guarantor is required? Of course they do not. That is one other subtle confirmation of the attitude that women are either not to be trusted or are too stupid to be given facilities without the back-up of a man. I have in mind the number of women who come to my surgery to tell me about the difficulties that they are facing because of the debts that their husbands have accumulated and have left them to clear up. It seems that we are still living in the Victorian age if we require women to have a male guarantor before they are allowed to avail themselves of certain facilities. How, for example, does a one-parent


family, which happens to be headed by a woman, cope with this situation? Will she be required to go to her vicar or to a friend to explain that the mortgage company or the hire purchase company will not trust her and ask him to stand as a guarantor? This is ludicrous. It is a Victorian situation.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Does the hon. Lady appreciate that the only reason why a finance company or any other financial institution asks for a male guarantor is that it is more likely that a male guarantor will be in a full-time job and, therefore, will be more likely to discharge the responsibilities of a guarantor if called upon to do so? [Interruption.] If the hon. Lady is ignoring that reality, she is giving free rein to her feminist paranoia and ignoring the realities of life.

Mrs. Richardson: I did not hear everything that the hon. Gentleman said but I remind him that there are well over 3 million unemployed and that many of them are men. I hestitate to say that his point is stupid but it is certainly ludicrous.

Mrs. M. Beckett: The hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) clearly has no experience of the situation that he described. Having been asked in the past to provide a male guarantor, I can assure him that no inquiry is made—[Interruption.]— about the status, the income or the employment of the guarantor. It seems that to be a man is considered sufficient.

Mr. Nicholls: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): Order. I am finding it difficult to hear. There is a great deal of noise in the House.

Mrs. Richardson: I think that an entire speech could be devoted to discrimination against girls at school, which is continuing still, and the facilities that they are offered within the curriculum that is provided. Boys are still offered football and girls are still offered netball. Boys take design and technology courses—I am talking about most schools but not all — while girls take home economics. Perhaps we have not included sufficiently effective provisions in our sex equality legislation properly to tighten practices within education. I hope that we shall have the opportunity carefully to consider the matter in Committee. There is much experience upon which we can draw from teachers and others and there are many ideas to discuss and consider. I hope that strengthening amendments will be tabled.
Discrimination starts at home and it is taken up in schools. If girls and boys are confirmed in the roles that society traditionally sees them playing by the sort of subjects that they are offered, girls will have fewer opportunities for jobs in what are regarded as male-dominated industries. They will be confirmed in their traditional role as home carers, undertaking home economics, with cooking and the kitchen sink as the main things in their lives. We all want attitudes to change but that is something for which we cannot legislate. However, we can say that girls should have equal opportunities with boys at school.
It is appalling that so many schools discourage girls, when they reach the age of 12 or 13 years, from continuing with maths and physics. Those subjects are crucial if one is intent on gaining entry into some jobs. I have heard —I do not know how true this is—that in some schools

the standard of marking for girls is more stringent than the marking for boys, making it almost impossible for them to complete the course. Boys are pushed and encouraged into the more technical pursuits and girls should be similarly encouraged. This would give them better opportunities at work.
A more positive attitude in the education sector could break down job segregation. The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 allows employers to recruit women for training in particular work and to give existing women workers special training, but makes it unlawful to recruit women or select them for a particular job. This means that an employer cannot guarantee his female trainee a job when she has successfully completed her training. It means that few employers will undertake the training of women if they cannot employ them in the job for which they have trained them after they have completed their training.
It is understandable that employers take this view and it is stupid that the Act should be so framed. We have positive discriminate in favour of men in training but when we mention positive discrimination, or positive action, for women everyone throws up his hands in horror. It is time that we legislated to ensure that employers are able positively to discriminate where possible towards the women in their employ.
I apologise for keeping the House for so long, but I come now to my two final points. The Bill will deal with discrimination in private clubs that are open to both men and women. It is possible, and will remain possible, for clubs and groups that exist only for the purpose of activities relating to men or activities relating to women to continue; but some clubs, including working men's clubs and the posh London clubs, technically open their doors, and offer membership, to both sexes, but in practice discriminate against women members.
I know that someone will ask, "Why should we let women on to a snooker table?" I have heard it said that women would rip snooker tables. It is not that women cannot play snooker — we have women snooker championships—it is that men consider snooker to be a male preserve and they do not want women to interfere in it. It is laughable for women to be told that they cannot be trusted with a snooker table. When I think of how men cannot be trusted in the home to look after the furniture, and the number of coffee or tea cup and beer glass rings that there are on my tables because I cannot persuade a man to do something simple like putting a mat underneath his glass or cup, I am certain that women could take very good care of a snooker table.
That is another form of discrimination that should be outlawed. I was appalled to read in The Guardian the other day that the Club and Institutes Union has yet again denied women associate membership cards which would enable women members — who should in any case be full members—to go to other clubs, as men can.

Mr. John Evans: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the National Union of Labour and Socialist Clubs has a policy of absolute non-discrimination written into its constitution, unlike the CIU?

Ms. Richardson: That is a shining beacon, and I wish that other working men's clubs did the same. However, the posh London clubs also practise discrimination. I have rarely been through the portals of some of the clubs along the Mall— I do not know what happens behind their


doors—but I know that they either do not allow women in or they discriminate against them when they enter. My Bill will put that right.
I have left until last the matter of sexual harassment at work. While preparing the Bill, and discussing it at meetings, I often heard it said, "Why do you want to include that? It does not exist. It is just making a joke out of the whole matter." However, it is a serious problem, and it is not a new one. Sexual harassment has been practised against women at work since time immemorial, but women were so embarrassed about it and found it so difficult to talk about, that it is only recently that the matter has been debated and discussed. Harassment ranges from sexist language to explicitly sexist calendars — [Interruption.]—to page three of The Sun, to the more threatening examples of women being touched up or asked for sexual favours and of being told, which many women have over the years, that they will not be promoted unless they submit to the sexual advances of someone who works higher up in their department. I assure those Conservative Members who seemed to think that my reference to calendars was trivial, that such matters offend many women.

Mr. Roland Boyes: And men.

Ms. Richardson: I am glad to hear my hon. Friend say that. We should begin with calendars and eradicate harassment right the way through the scale.

Mr. Howard: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms. Richardson: I shall not give way again.

Mr. Howard: rose——

Mr. Boyes: The hon. and learned Gentleman is not wearing his fancy dress today. He should have put on his wig and the rest of his paraphernalia before coming in here.

Ms. Richardson: Such harassment is not just deeply offensive, but is a manifestation of the male domination of society. It means that men still believe that they can treat women in that way and keep them in a submissive role. If it continues, it will be extremely dangerous to the liberty of women. Recently someone said to me, "Of course, women ask for it. It is the way they dress." I have heard that women can be sexually harassed bundled up in thermal clothing while working in a freezer factory, or wearing clothes suitable for a nightclub.
One young woman who worked in a company in the north of England recently brought a successful case of unfair dismissal. She worked in the personnel department of a fairly large firm. She went out with her colleagues for a celebratory drink, and during the evening the firm's accountant, who was not employed by it, pressed his advances on her—if that is the best way to put it—and he became so unpleasant that, after about an hour, she picked up a glass of lager and poured it over him. I would have done so an hour before. Nothing more was thought about the matter, but two days later on a Sunday night the woman's employer telephoned her and sacked her, because the angry accountant had told him that he had been insulted by the woman. She brought a case against the firm, and was successful, but it took her 11 months to do so and she almost had a nervous breakdown in the

meantime. She could not find a similar job during that period, because every time she went for an interview the employer would ask her why she had left her previous job, and she had to say that she had been unfairly dismissed because she had poured a glass of lager over someone. Women should not have to suffer such harassment, and if we include it in the legal framework we can eradicate it.
I repeat that the Bill has been supported by a wide variety of organisations and individuals——

Mr. Marlow: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms. Richardson: I shall make my final point, and then the hon. Gentleman can make his speech.
I shall end by quoting from a letter that was delivered to me by hand yesterday evening from the National Federation of Women's Institutes. In case right hon. and hon. Members believe that the Bill was dreamt up by a lot of trendy feminist groups, I am glad to say that the
federation said:
The National Federation of Women's Institutes is pleased to offer its support for your Bill, and to wish you every success at the second reading on Friday.
We particularly welcome your Bill's comprehensive approach towards the promotion of equal opportunities as set out in Part VI. As you may know, the NFWI has for some time been campaigning for the equal treatment of women and men in taxation, in social security, in retirement ages, and in educational opportunities. We are much encouraged by the prospect that these areas, not covered by the EPA and SDA, would be subject to review in the light of the Bill's policy and objects. For too long we have seen minor adjustments here and there rather than the positive adoption of sex equality as a principle to be applied throughout social and economic policy.
The amalgamation of the EPA and SDA is also a welcome proposal. We have been concerned to see continuing difficulties in interpreting these laws, the confusion over which Act to apply and the unjust results which ensue. Any measure bringing clarity and fairness into this area can only command our support … on behalf of our 360,000 members I am therefore delighted to welcome your Bill and to support its aims and objects.
I hope that Conservative Members who may have reservations about the Bill will realise that an organisation which I am sure that they respect is in favour of it.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Alan Clark): It may be helpful if at an early stage I set
the context in which this highly important subject should be debated in relation to the Government's attitude as many right hon. and hon. Members will wish to let us have the benefit of their views. With the leave of the House I shall do my best to answer their comments later.
This is a monumental Bill with 97 clauses and a money resolution. That is an unusual dimension for a private
Member's Bill. None the less, I congratulate the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) on her elevation to the Opposition Front Bench as spokesperson on this most important topic. I also congratulate her on the industry and singlemindedness that she and her helpers have demonstrated in the preparation of the Bill.
The Bill seeks to make many and far-reaching amendments to the Sex Descrimination and Equal Pay Acts. Its purpose is to repeal those Acts and replace them with a revised version. I am sorry to have to say that the revised version is not an improvement. The Government believe, as have predecessors of both parties, that the Sex Discrimination and Equal Pay Acts are good, sound pieces of legislation. They have fair and realistic objectives. It is practicable to comply with the obligations that they impose.
The Sex Equality Bill, no doubt because of the enthusiasm of its authors, lacks particularly the quality of balance. It is not fair or realistic, and it does not take account of the practicalities of the real world. I am obliged to draw hon. Members' attention to its deficiencies which I shall illustrate by referring to some examples from the Bill.
The Sex Descrimination Act is founded on the principle of fairness. It provides that access to jobs must be on the basis of merit, not on the basis of sex. Such a principle obviously makes sense to employers, too. There is no exception in the Sex Descrimination Act to the principle that an employer may not discriminate in filling jobs, whether he is recruiting or promoting.
The only circumstance in which he may offer any benefit to one sex but not the other is when training his work force. Then, he may offer training to his male employees or his female employees only, provided that he is training them for work in his employment in which the sex in question is currently significantly underrepresented.
Clause 51 of this Bill ignores the fundamental principle that access to jobs must be on the basis of merit not sex. It appears to provide that employers may lawfully recruit men only, or women only, should they so choose, provided simply that they train their new recruits. I cannot believe that this was the intended effect. I cannot believe that the hon. Lady wishes to provide that employers may lawfully reserve all their vacancies for men.
The Bill's drafters must have intended, although they have not so provided, that discriminatory recruitment should be restricted to circumstances where one sex is
under-represented in particular work in the employer's work force. But such a provision is equally unfair. It
would permit, for example, an employer to reserve all his managerial positions for women, whom he would recruit and train, regardless of how many better qualified men may be awaiting promotion. Fortunately no rational employer would ever wish to take advantage of such a provision. Nor do I believe that many women would want to be recruited on the basis of their sex, and not their ability.
I said that the Sex Discrimination Act had realistic
objectives. By this I mean, first, that it tackles a genuine problem of sufficient seriousness to merit legislative intervention, a problem that could affect half the population and prevent them from using their talents. Secondly, while the Sex Discrimination Act clearly falls into the category of progressive legislation, it is not too far ahead of public opinion. Legislation which works primarily by changing attitudes will not be effective if it seeks to change those attitudes too far too fast.
The Bill contains a number of provisions which, it seems to me, fail on one or both of these tests of genuine serious need and widespread public support. Perhaps the two most striking examples are clauses 2 and 3, which extend the definition of sex discrimination to cover sexual harassment and discrimination against homosexuals in employment. It is far from clear how the provision on sexual harassment is intended to work.
Clause 2(4) provides:
A person treats a woman less favourably within the meaning of subsection (1) (a) … by subjecting her to sexual harassment, which means unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favours and verbal, physical, or other conduct of a sexual nature.

But this clause does not in itself render anything unlawful, it merely sets the scene by defining discrimination. To find out whether discrimination by an employer is unlawful we have to read across to clause 6 on discrimination in terms of employment. From this it is clear that if an employer makes unwanted sexual advances in one of the contexts defined, in the terms and conditions on which he employes a woman, or in dismissing her, the provision could bite. However, the bill does not cover harassment from a fellow worker. The hon. Lady described the case of the accountant who behaved disgracefully. I accept the tenor of her argument about what is honourable and dishonourable in that context, but such an incident is not covered by her Bill. It does not really cover other employees who may harass women in the office. The only redress is against the employer.

Mr. Ian Mikardo: Is not that a perfect example of what the Committee stage of a Bill is for?

Mr. Clark: I have heard the hon. Member on many occasions in Committee and I appreciate the lucid way in which he argues his case, but he would be in difficulty in Committee on this matter. Relating definitions, the circumstances and the offence of discrimination against the employer is a problem of enormous complexity. I understand the honourable thought behind the provision, but as translated by the Bill it is surely misconceived.
The provision on homosexuals simply makes it unlawful for an employer ever to refuse a homosexual a job on the ground of his homosexuality. It makes no recognition of the fact that sometimes a person's homosexuality is relevant to whether he is a suitable candidate for a job. The teaching profession may be an example. In a limited number of circumstances, the current Act allows discrimination on grounds of sex.
I said that the Sex Discrimination Act imposes obligations with which compliance is a practicable proposition. One does not have to read very far into the Sex Equality Bill to find obligations with which it would be impossible to comply. For example, clause 2 provides that
A person discriminates against a woman
if
he treats her less favourably than he treats or would treat a man, and cannot show that he does so solely on a ground other than her sex".
This is the Sex Discrimination Act definition of "discrimination" with the addition of a requirement that the employer prove that his reasons for a particular recruitment or promotion decision, or even a decision to send an employee on a training course or to a conference, were entirely independent of considerations relating to the sex of the employee. But of what can such proof consist?
Clearly, employers would have at the very least to document fully all decisions affecting their employees, but how do they prove that the reasons given in the documentation were in fact the sole reasons? How can an employer ever prove that no thought that a man might be better for the job entered his mind?
Nor does the Sex Equality Bill make any recognition of the practicalities of running a business, as is illustrated by its proposals on paternity and maternity leave. Clause 13 is intended to give fathers the right to two weeks' paid paternity leave and to use some of the mothers' weeks of


leave of absence after the birth. I say "intended" because it is doubtful whether, as drafted, it would achieve those purposes.
Fathers would enjoy the same rights as mothers to reinstatement after such leave and to complain of unfair dismissal if not reinstated. The authors of this Bill are in effect attempting to extend to fathers rights that were specifically designed for women who bear children. The existing maternity rights cater for the phsyiological needs of mothers and babies, and it must be thought inappropriate to preach "equal opportunity" in this context.
If we look at the case for paternity leave on its merits, I know that leave for fathers at the time of birth and shortly afterwards can be a great help. But here we have the familiar problem of maintaining the balance between the rights of employees and the burdens on employers.
The new statutory rights proposed would cause great difficulties, administrative expense and inconvenience for employers, especially in small firms or where key employees are involved. Temporary replacements would often have to be engaged by the father's employer as well as the mother's. As most mothers are not absent for the full 29 weeks allowed under present legislation, in practice the leave taken by both parents would often add up to more than the leave taken by one. We must continue to allow the question of leave for fathers to remain a matter for individual negotiation and decision between employer and employee.
Although the authors of the Bill have not given this much prominence in their publicity, clause 13 also tries to extend the present maternity rights. The changes introduced by the Government in 1980 relating to the mother's right to return to work after confinement are all repealed. We made the changes in 1980 because employers were experiencing difficulties coping with this right and the existing provisions were positively deterring them from recruiting and promoting women.
Employment rights are no good without jobs, and it would be quite wrong to destroy the delicate balance between rights and obligations by repealing the 1980 provisions now.

Mr. Richard Caborn: rose——

Mr. Clark: I would rather not give way for the moment; I am still dealing with clause 13, which also reduces the qualifying period of service for maternity rights from two years to six months. The Bill's sponsors should not underestimate the extra burdens that this would place on employers and the deterrent effect that it would have on the employment of women of child-bearing age.
I doubt whether that deterrent effect would be much outweighed for employers by the consideration that male employees who might be living with pregnant women employed for six months by their own employers could also take leave of absence.

Mr. Caborn: Is the Minister aware that recommendations of the European Commission to the Social Affairs Committee of the European Parliament urge the improvement of the quality of family life and say, as a result of a two-year study into the matter, that there should be three months' leave for both parties? Those recommendations will be coming up for discussion in the form of a regulation.

Mr. Clark: I am aware of those recommendations, but recommendations by the Commission sometimes run outside what is practicable. I am sure that on reflection the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, as will Opposition Members who have been in government, that such changes would impose heavy burdens that are simply not appropriate at the present time.

Ms. Harman: What about the heavy burden that is placed on women who must work to make ends meet but for whom there is not proper maternity provision? And what about the heavy burden that is placed on a man who must go straight back to work as if nothing has happened when his wife has had a baby? Is it not a fact that families are being brought up and that babies are being born, and should not our pattern of employment reflect that reality?

Mr. Clark: I agree that it is a heavy burden, but under existing legislation there is generous maternity provision. The issue whether men should also benefit is set out in the Bill, many of the provisions of which are, as I say, contradictory and anomalous, but perhaps the hon. Lady will develop the theme of paternity leave for men if she has an opportunity to speak in the debate.
The Bill provides for women to claim equal pay for work of equal value as required by the European Court of Justice. This is no longer necessary. [Interruption.] As hon. Members will be aware, the Equal Pay (Amendment) Regulations, approved by the House on 20 July have been accepted in another place and will allow women to make equal value claims from 1 January of next year.
The Bill's authors have justified the proposed reduction in the qualifying period by arguing that the maternity pay fund has some spare cash. Going down to six months for mother could alone cost the fund over £20 million a year. To this should be added the cost of two weeks' paternity leave for fathers, which is evidently also to come from the fund. The maternity pay fund could not meet such new demands, even for one year, without running into deficit.

Mr. Mikardo: It would not.

Mr. Clark: The hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) states from a sedentary position that it would not.

Mr. John Smith: The Minister should be careful not to mislead the House. What the other place passed was an amendment to the regulations stating that, in the opinion of another place, they did not conform with the requirements of the European Court.

Mr. Clark: That it perfectly right, but it is not really relevant.

Mr. Smith: Why not?

Mr. Clark: Because the regulations have been approved and the opinion expressed in the amendment is, I am strongly advised, incorrect; we believe that we are in line with the European regulations.
In relation to equal pay, the Bill provides for women to claim equal pay for work of equal value as provided by the European Court. As I said, that is no longer necessary, but what is surprising is the difference between the way in which we have provided for such claims to be dealt with and the Bill's proposals.
At first sight the Bill's provision for an equality officer to report on the question whether two jobs are of equal value looks comparable to that allowing a tribunal to


commission a report from an independent expert. But there is a fundamental difference between the two officers. Under the new regulations the expert is to be a person designated by ACAS, an independent body which has no possible partisan interest in the proceedings.
According to the Bill, the equality officer will be an employee of the Equal Opportunities Commission. But the Bill also provides for that same commission to assist a claimant and even handle her case before the tribunal. The commission"s sense of integrity would of course, in practice, guarantee that there would be no conflict of interest. But surely it is unreasonable to expect a respondent to feel sanguine at having his case determined on the evidence of an official of the organisation supporting those who are claiming against him. I believe that this provision would be considered neither fair nor reasonable by employers.
The Equal Opportunities Commission has a statutory duty to review the working of the Sex Discrimination and Equal Pay Acts. I know that the commission intends to bring forward proposals for amendment in the latter half of next year, and we shall consider them most carefully.
It would have been interesting to hear the commission's views on the Bill. I know that it wanted to comment but was unable to do so in the short time available since the Bill's publication. I take this opportunity to record our appreciation of the constructive and sensible comments made by the commission during our consultations on the equal pay amendment regulations and the accompanying tribunal procedure regulations, which were largely altered in the light of the commission's recommendations.
The commission has a key role in assisting in the development of equal opportunity policies through legislative change where appropriate and through its many initiatives, such as the important Women into Science and Engineering Year which is to be commended for its valuable and practical approach to the serious issue of tackling the under-representation of girls and women in engineering. That point was made by the hon. Lady when she referred to the fact that very few girls do physics and mathematics courses of an advanced nature. As the hon. Lady probably knows, I have signed a number of designations under section 47 designating courses that are exclusively for women and girls.
I am sure that the House will understand that in my opening remarks I have not been able to deal with more than a few of the Bill's main provisions. There is scope for a lengthy critique on important but complex issues, such as indirect discrimination and the concept of the hypothetical man. Other right hon. and hon. Members may wish to develop that point.
I emphasise that, although the Government remain firmly committed to equal opportunities, many of the Bill's specific proposals are fundamentally misconceived and taken together, we have no option but to oppose them. Some proposals, such as those on maternity and paternity leave, would place unacceptable administrative burdens on employers and jeopardise the prospects for both men and women. Other proposals, such as the provisions on single sex recruitment, would surely have unintended ill-effects.
Even more importantly, I remind the House that a number of the Bill's provisions go well beyond what I believe public opinion is prepared to support in this sensitive field of legislation. I said that the Bill was monumental and certainly, whatever its effect, it will be

a monument to the industry and single-mindedness of the author and those who have assisted her. None the less, I believe that the Bill is impracticable, expensive and in many respects alien to public opinion, and I must urge the House to reject it.

Mr. John Smith: The Labour party give the Bill their total support. I wish to say how inadequate we found the reply of the Under-Secretary of State. It is typical of Ministers who are frightened to argue the principles that lie behind the Bill that they take refuge in pettifogging, legalistic criticisms, such as those to which we have just listened.
I can speak briefly because of the eloquent way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) introduced the measure. Our commitment to the Bill's sentiments pre-dates my hon. Friend's Opposition Front Bench responsibility, but her speech today amply demonstrated the wisdom of her appointment to those responsibilities.
The principle that lies behind the Bill—I hope that the House will not forget it — is that discrimination based on sex and sexuality is wrong. That is the first point that we wish to make in support of the Bill. Secondly, the plain fact is that the Equal Pay Act 1970 and the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 have been shown to suffer from important defects, such as those outlined by the hon. Lady. Those were useful and necessary pieces of legislation, but in a number of important respects they have been found to be inadequate. It is a measure of how far they fall below current international standards that the European Court ruled that the existing provisions for equal pay for work of equal value were illegal in terms of the European provisions. That was a sorry tale.
Only a few days ago, another place expressed the opinion that the regulations that the Government are offering, after having been found to have acted illegally by the European Court, are still in contravention of the provisions that the European Court wishes to see implemented. Not only have the Government been found to have acted illegally, but there is a strongly held opinion that they are still acting illegally in the methods used to try to put the illegality right. It is not sufficient for Ministers to say that the regulations still stand. By a clear and free vote backed by distinguished judges, such as Lord Denning, the other place showed that it thought that the Government were not only not acting in good faith in bringing forward the regulations but acting illegally. The other place came to that view because the regulations were over-complex, insufficient, bureaucratic in character and allowed market force defences and all sorts of other provisions that strike right at the heart of the objectives that the regulations were designed to achieve. The Government are failing in their obligation to observe the directive from the European Commission and going back on their commitment to be a genuine partner in the European Community.

Ms. Harman: Is not a striking contrast and telling difference to be found in the way that the Government have responded to the European Court's ruling on the importation of UHT milk, which will annihilate the doorstep delivery? The European Court of Justice made a decision on that matter in February this year, yet already regulations have been passed that will comply with its


ruling. However, in the summer of last year the European Court said that the Government were failing in their equality legislation and the Government still have not remedied that position.

Mr. Smith: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for a telling analogy of the Government's attitude. The Government have deliberately sought to bring in the minimum provisions that they could get away with on equal pay for work of equal value. We have had a sorry tale of regulations being introduced and then being withdrawn. In the other place, regulations were produced in October, mysteriously withdrawn, and they reappeared in December as the deadline of the end of the year marched relentlessly forward. The way in which the Government have approached this matter shows that they are simply dragging their feet on well-known commitments that they ought to be putting into force.
Clause 8 offers the Government a way out. My hon. Friend the Member for Barking has been helpful in bringing forward that provision because it allows the Government to escape from the problem and to conform to the requirements of the European Court.
There are other important matters in the Bill that are of current concern, including the problem of part-time employment which is becoming an increasing feature of our labour market. There are 800,000 more people in part-time employment than 10 years ago. It is important that legislation is put in place to ensure that those people are properly protected. In a recent paper to the National Economic Development Council the Chancellor of the Exchequer drew attention to the increase in part-time employment. He talked ominously about the need for real wages to be made more responsive to conditions in the labour market. That has alerted many people to the need to ensure that part-time workers are properly protected, and the Bill offers us such an opportunity.
The community faces another major problem with homeworkers because low pay is endemic among them. The Bill takes a major step to eradicate that exploitation. I hope that we shall receive a more considered reply on measures relating to part-time employment and home-workers than the Government have given so far. It is not good enough for the Government merely to say that some changes will cost more. That argument could have been put to Lord Shafesbury when he was trying to stop people being forced to climb chimneys. Every time we make such an advance, some cost will be involved. The cost must be evaluated in terms of the community's social objectives, the improvement in our standards of life, and the raising of the standards that we as a community want to see observed by employers. I hope that the Minister will give a much more considered reply on these matters.
The Opposition support the Bill. We have shown that the Government response is totally inadequate. Hiding behind technicalities will not stop the progress of this legislation. If it is defeated today, my hon. Friend the Member for Barking and others will ensure that it is brought back time and again for urgent consideration by the House.

It being Eleven o'clock, MR. SPEAKER interrupted the proceedings, pursuant to Standing Order No. 5 (Friday sittings).

Orders of the Day — Argentina (Arms Purchases)

Dr. David Owen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that I raised a point of order at 9.35 am. I was told at 10 am that a private notice question had not been allowed. I am at a loss to understand how a private notice question can be disallowed when a Government statement is now to be made.

Mr. Speaker: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, matters about private notice questions are not normally raised with the Speaker. The usual time for announcements of these matters and of statements is after 10 o'clock, not at 9.30.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Ray Whitney): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the United States certification of and possible arms sales to Argentina. I apologise to the Opposition for not being able to let them have an earlier advance copy of the statement, due to circumstances of which I believe they are aware.
President Reagan's decision, announced yesterday, was not sprung upon us. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House told the House on 22 November, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made our position very clear to President Reagan when she saw him in September and the Americans have kept us closely informed. Their certification under United States law that Argentina has made significant progress in human rights is not equivalent to arms sales. Like the President, we have noted and welcomed the restoration of democracy in Argentina and other progress there on human rights.
Arms purchases are not one of the priorities of the incoming Government of Argentina. We have been glad to note the public assurance by the United States Defence Secretary that the United States Administration will exercise caution about the resumption of major new supplies to Argentina and will not supply weapons which could be used to attempt a new invasion of the Falklands.
We shall remain in contact with the United States Administration on this subject.

Mr. Denis Healey: I thank the hon. Gentleman for responding so quickly to our urgent appeal for a statement in the House. I also welcome the very moderate and sensible tone of his statement today, which was in striking contrast with the excited rhetoric of the Prime Minister a few weeks ago when she talked of betrayal and outrage. Coming from her, such complaints were difficult to understand, as in the summer she had herself authorised British firms to supply vital equipment for German warships, knowing that they were to be sold to Argentina. She also authorised the sale of heavy water to Germany, knowing that it would be on sale to Argentina for the manufacture of nuclear materials suitable for weapons, although the Argentine Government had not —and still have not—accepted international safeguards in relation to their nuclear processes.
I also welcome the Minister's recognition that Mr. Alfonsin has no intention of wasting his country's money on armaments unless he is compelled to do so. The only threat that he now faces is from Chile, which is ruled by a dictatorship even less agreeable than the Argentine junta but to which, as we were told yesterday, the British


Government are still supplying weapons which could be used against Argentina. Does the Minister accept that if the Government wish to dissuade the Argentine Government from taking advantage of the relaxation of American controls there is no better way to do it than to put an immediate embargo on the sale of British arms to Chile?

Mr. Whitney: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's condemnation of excited rhetoric. I hope that he will continue to take that view and to abjure the excited rhetoric that we have heard from him and from many of his right hon. and hon. Friends in the anti-American postures that they have adopted so regularly in past weeks — in opposition to all that the right hon. Gentleman himself previously stood for, although I appreciate his problems in seeking to maintain a facade of unity behind the rhetoric.
The circumstances of the transfers of heavy water have already been explained to the right hon. Gentleman and he knows that they had nothing to do directly with this Government. The attitude towards arms sales to Chile, which is not the subject of the statement, is examined on a case by case basis, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary explained clearly in the House on Wednesday.
I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman accepts the moderate, balanced and sensible tone of my statement.

Dr. Owen: too, welcome the marked difference in tone between the Minister's statement and those emanating from No. 10. Does he agree that it is a tragedy that the British Government will not be represented at the inauguration of President Alfonsin in Buenos Aires tomorrow?
Will the Minister explain what the Prime Minister meant when she wrote to me yesterday about the Argentine Government not having yet made a definitive declaration on the cessation of hostilities? The new President has talked about using peaceful means. The House should commend a man who, in the midst of the Falklands war, referred to the invasion as an illegitimate act by an illegal Government in a just cause. He is a true democrat and should be sustained by the House.
Will the Prime Minister now drop her hysterical attitude on fortress Falklands and realise that no country should continue to bear that burden unless there is failure to reach a negotiated settlement? She should now show generosity and a capacity to forgive, welcome the new democratic regime and declare the Government's readiness to open negotiations on the basis that they will be conducted by peaceful means only, which should be accepted as a satisfactory definition of the fact that hostilities are now over or will be over as from tomorrow.

Mr. Whitney: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on achieving his private notice question without its being allowed. I am happy to respond to it.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Whitney: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. With your permission, I shall be happy to respond to the substance of the right hon. Gentleman's intervention, although it is somewhat far from the statement.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that, as my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State said in another place this week. Her Majesty's Government

welcome the election of a democratic Government in Argentina. We wish President-elect Alfonsin and his colleagues well."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 December 1983; Vol. 445, c. 1013.]
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will also acknowledge that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has consistently said that we look for normalisation of relations with the new Argentine Government.
The right hon. Gentleman must also recognise, however, that for the time being no cessation of the use of force has been formally declared and that it is vital that we continue to preserve the interests of the Falkland Islanders. In view of the support that he gave the Government in that difficult period last year, I hope that he will recognise that that vital principle must not be neglected.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Is my hon. Friend aware that, although Conservative Members believe that America is very much our best ally and deplore the anti-Americanism now sweeping through parts of this country and being triggered off by the words and actions of Opposition Members, some of us consider that it would have been rather more friendly and helpful if the Americans had required the Argentines to declare an end to hostilities with Britain before rushing to confer this benefit on them?

Mr. Whitney: The act of certification depended on progress on human rights and democracy in Argentina. As I said in my statement, the British Government acknowledge that significant progress has indeed been made in Argentina in those two important areas. The next step — the authorisation of specific arms sales — is something else again. On that, we have received assurances from spokesmen for the United States Administration. We have been assured, for example, that no arms transfers are contemplated that would increase the prospects of a renewed conflict in the Falklands.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Is it not the case that the defence of the Falkland Islands depends not on what arms Argentina can or cannot acquire but upon the ability and will of this country to reinforce the islands when a real threat to them exists?

Mr. Whitney: That is a major factor. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that Her Majesty's Government are fully conscious of that point and are taking all steps to met it.

Mr. Peter Viggers: Does my hon. Friend agree that while a state of hostility formally exists it is necessary for our armed forces in the Falkland Islands area to remain at the highest state of vigilance? Can we rely on the good offices of the United States Government to try to ensure that this state of hostilities is ended by the Argentine Government?

Mr. Whitney: I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that her Majesty's Government's commitment to the defence of the Falkland Islands is beyond question, as all the evidence and all the steps we have taken surely prove. I can also assure my hon. Friend that the United States Administration are left in no doubt about Her Majesty's Government's attitude to the future of the Falkland Islands and to our relations with the Argentine Government.

Mr. Jack Ashley: Does not the United States' decision underline the fact that the


inexorable pressure of world events is compelling this country to recognise that it is being isolated in the Falklands and that sooner or later it will be forced to negotiate with the new Argentine regime? Is it not better to do so gracefully sooner rather than later?

Mr. Whitney: I repeat that Her Majesty's Government have already welcomed the democratic Government in Argentina. We have extended, through the statement by my noble Friend in another place the other day, our good wishes to President-elect Alfonsin and his colleagues. Our attitude to the future of the Falkland Islands government remains clear and our commitment to the future of the Falkland Islanders is beyond question.

Dr. Brian Mawhinney (Peterborough): Does my hon. Friend accept that, because of the importance of our alliance with the United States, his intimation that there were prior consultations before this decision was taken is most welcome? In the light of Secretary Weinberger's comments, will Her Majesty's Government indicate to the American Government which classes of weapons we consider it would be unhelpful for them to supply to Argentina?

Mr. Whitney: I certainly accept my hon. Friend's point. As I pointed out, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made our position clear to the President in September and we have been kept fully informed by the American since those exchanges. On the issue of arms sales, the assurances we have been given by the United States, which have been made publicly, can give confidence to the House that the aim that my hon. Friend wishes and indeed we all wish, will be achieved.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does the Minister recall that at the beginning of this year the Prime Minister, along with the banks in this country and in connivance, I assume, with the United States banking set-up and the rest, decided that it would be in the best interests of the world's economy, or, more precisely, the banking economy, to send a lot of money to Argentina in order that this bankers' ramp could be continued? Does not the Minister agree that what he has had to say today about America and the selling of missiles is more than a little hypocritical in view of the fact that, were not the British banks taking part in the exercise to lend money to Argentina, the Argentines would not be so well equipped to buy those arms which, undoubtedly, on one occasion or another, will be landing on the airport which is costing the British taxpayer so much money?

Mr. Whitney: Not for the first time the hon. Gentleman is led astray by cries about a bankers' ramp. If the hon. Gentleman were to take time just occasionally to reflect calmly on British interests, he would accept that the Government are pursuing a calm, moderate and sensible policy in this difficult direction.

Mr. Skinner: Answer the question.

Mr. Whitney: With regard to the aid that our banks have given to Argentina, the hon. Gentleman should understand, as I am sure do workers in this country, that the prosperity of Britain and the jobs of British workers depend on the future of the banking system.

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: Does my hon. Friend agree that our long-term aim must be a prosperous and

secure future for the Falkland Islands without an undue burden on this country? In this respect, I welcome very much his statement that we are pursuing a normalisation of relations with the Argentine and his welcome to the Alfosin Government. Will he reaffirm that we are determined now to normalise our relations with the Argentines? What steps might bring this into effect?

Mr. Whitney: I am happy to reaffirm Her Majesty's Government's strong desire to achieve a normalisation of relations with Argentina and at the same time, of course, to fulfil the commitment we have given and continue to give to secure the future of the Falkland Islanders. I believe that at this stage it would be premature to make any early forecasts about a Government who, after all, have not yet taken office.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the Minister agree that the long-term defence of the Falkland Islands and particularly of the islanders' way of life depends not so much on a huge military fortress which no longer has public support in the United Kingdom but on early negotiations with Argentina without unnecessary preconditions?

Mr. Whitney: I can only repeat that Her Majesty's Government's policy, which I have outlined over the past few minutes, will achieve the ends we seek, which are the protection of the interests of the Falkland islanders and a normalisation of our relations with Argentina. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that it takes two to tango.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: However welcome may be the improved legitimacy and democratic quality of the new Argentine regime, does not the normalisation of relations depend on the new President saying that he disagrees with his air force general who announced the other day that his air force would continue to probe the defences of the Falkland Islands in order to increase the cost to this country of defending them?

Mr. Whitney: I entirely accept my hon. Friend's point. We very much need a clear statement from the Argentine Government, once they assume office, that the use of force is banned for ever from their policy towards the Falkland Islands.

Dame Judith Hart: As the Minister has welcomed the restoration of democracy in Argentina, and as it is clear that the American Government recognise the tremendous improvement in human rights there which is the result of that, does he agree, first, that, having welcomed the election of Mr. Alfonsin, it is necessary to take any steps which will preserve and strengthen democracy in Argentina — that is relevant to the discussions that may take place between the two Governments — and, secondly, that this requires a complete review of our policies in Latin America, particularly in relation to arms sales to Chile? Is it not absurd that we welcome democracy in Argentina but continue to supply arms to its major enemy, which is the grossest offender against human rights in the whole of Latin America?

Mr. Whitney: I assure the right hon. Lady that, although we welcome the steps taken towards democracy in Argentina, when she asks whether we would consider any sacrifice, I must tell her that there are vital interests with regard to the Falkland Islanders which we most certainly will not sacrifice in that interest.
I have already told the right hon. Member for Lees, East (Mr. Healey) that the case in Chile is considered item by item. I wish that the right hon. Lady and her right hon. and hon. Friends would accept that there have been steps towards the opening of democracy in Chile during the past few months.

Mr. James Callaghan: As the Minister referred to the reaction of the Foreign Office as being "calm" and "moderate" towards this action by the United States, may we be assured that the Prime Minister has seen and approved his statement?

Mr. Whitney: It should scarcely be necessary for me to assure the distinguished right hon. Gentleman that any statement made from the Dispatch Box of course carries the agreement and approval of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I assure him and the House that any attempt to suggest that there is a wedge between the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Prime Minister is pure fiction.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Will my hon. Friend accept that, although hon. Members on both sides of the House will wish President Alfonsin the best, we still have to conduct our defence of the Falklands on the basis that South American politics can be turbulent and the fact that there is a democratic regime there today does not mean that there will be a democratic regime there tomorrow?

Mr. Whitney: Sadly, that will remain a factor in Latin American politics, as it remains a factor in the politics of all too many countries.

Mr. James Lamond: Remembering the Minister's excellent speech from the Government Back Benches when the task force was sent to the south Atlantic, may we take it that he at least recognises that this is one more step along the road to complying with the United Nations resolution that, to save ourselves enormous costs, we should get down as soon as possible to negotiating the future of the Malvinas?

Mr. Whitney: I did not quite recognise the last word in the hon. Gentleman's question. I should hate to accept his praise undeservedly. I recall that my statement on 2 April 1982 strongly urged the Government that, as the fleet steamed to the south Atlantic, they should negotiate earnestly and seriously to try to achieve a peaceful resolution. That is precisely what the Government did. The tragedy was that the military regime in Argentina rejected those attempts.
The Government's policy is to normalise our relations with Argentina, while preserving the vital interests of the Falkland Islanders, which we have committed ourselves to preserving.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: Will my hon. Friend confirm that if the new Argentine Government made sensible overtures to us the Government would receive them with a positive and magnanimous attitude?

Mr. Whitney: My hon. Friend tempts me into the realms of hypothetical questions. Let us see what overtures develop. I assure my hon. Friend that they will be considered positively, in the spirit of our professed desire to restore normal economic and diplomatic relations with the Argentine.

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: As the United States Government have said that in future aims sales to the Argentine they will distinguish between arms that could be used for a military invasion of the Falklands and those that could not, are the British Government satisfied that such a distinction can be made? If so, will they consider sending the Americans a list of the arms that they think would not be used in a military invasion of the Falklands?

Mr. Whitney: The United States Administration have given us an undertaking that they will remain in close consultation on this issue, and their performance has shown that they are firmly honouring that undertaking. I have no doubt that we shall remain in close consultation on the points raised by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that when a previous Labour Government decided to remove the deterrent force of an aircraft carrier and a support ship from the south Atlantic and the Indian ocean they left the Falkland Islands with no means of deterring aggression? May we be assured that plans being made now, by either the United States or ourselves, will not put the Falkland Islanders at risk again?

Mr. Whitney: The real crisis for the Falkland Islands came with the total failure of the Argentines to understand the Government's determination to resist aggression. After the events of last year, I am confident that neither the next Argentine Government nor any successor Government will be in any doubt about the fact that while the Conservative party is in power we shall respond positively in defence of the legitimate interests of the Falkland Islanders and any other minority people for whom we have responsibility.

Mr. Roland Boyes: Last night, a senior member of the Cabinet said of our relationship with Washington:
the scars are healing, but they are still there and we may get beyond the US election before we are back in the kind of circumstances where we have got better relations.
That was said before this latest announcement. Does the Minister agree that the so-called special relationship between President Reagan and our Prime Minister is in tatters?

Mr. Whitney: Of course I do not. It is important to understand that the fundamental interests of and the relationship between the United States and this country extend far beyond any individuals, however important they may be.

Mr. Healey: Hear, hear.

Mr. Whitney: The fundamental interests that we share are absolute. The tragedy is that the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) used to understand that fact, but now, under the pressure of too many of his hon. Friends, he is ready to renege on it.

Mr. Alfred Dubs: Is the Minister saying that the Government's attitude to and willingness to negotiate with and sell arms to other Governments is not in the least related to whether those Governments are democratic or in fundamental breach of human rights?

Mr. Whitney: Did the hon. Gentleman refer to the United States or the British Government?

Mr. Dubs: I was talking about the British Government

Mr. Whitney: The hon. Gentleman should understand that, as has been explained many times in the House, the Government's policy is to consider those matters case by case. That has been done over the years by Governments of both complexions. It is the most sensible way to conduct our relations in the interests of Britain.

Mr. Richard Holt: Does my hon. Friend agree that but for the bravery of the British forces and the courage of our Prime Minister the chances are that the junta would still be in power in the Argentine and that the democracy there today owes a great deal more to the troops who died and the actions of the Government than to anything said by the Opposition?

Mr. Whitney: I agree with my hon. Friend. The Opposition's position during the months following the invasion was difficult to follow, because it moved so rapidly. There is no doubt that the point made by my hon. Friend is well taken.

Mr. Healey: Despite the typical comment made by the Minister a moment ago, I repeat that we welcome the fact that his statement has opened the prospect of a return to common sense by the Government in relation to the problems of the Falklands and Argentina. As the hon. Gentleman has said that he wants to normalise our relations with the Argentines, will he agree that by far the best demonstration of that desire would be to take advantage of President Alfonsin's taking office tomorrow to announce the full restoration of diplomatic relations between London and Buenos Aires? Sending an ambassador back to Buenos Aires would be by far the best demonstration of the Government's intentions and would not, in itself, imply anything further.

Mr. Whitney: I am sorry if the right hon. Gentleman thinks that my response was typical. What I was doing, and I shall readily continue to do it, was pointing out the inconsistencies in his attitude to the United States.
With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's substantive point, the Government continue to wish to see the normalisation of relations with Argentina. However, I repeat to the right hon. Gentleman, because it is appropriate in this context, that it takes two to tango.

Mr. Speaker: May I remind the House that it is not in order for right hon. or hon. Members to make any reference on the Floor of the House to the fact that a private notice question has not been accepted by the Chair. I hope that all right hon. and hon. Members will observe our long-standing practice in that respect.

Orders of the Day — Ministerial Statements

Mr. Michael Cocks: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise with you a matter that could be raised only after a full study of the Official Report for yesterday, which hon. Members will now have had the chance to look at. I refer to the statement made yesterday by the Minister for Health about National Health Service pharmaceuticals. That statement occupies some nine and a half columns of the Official Report—c. 477 to 486. Despite that, some right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House were squeezed out from asking questions.
At the time, the Minister was suspected of filibustering. If we examine the official record we find that after his opening statement and the reply from my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), the questions occupy some 144 lines whereas the Minister's replies occupy some 237. I ask you to examine that, Mr. Speaker, because it is a possible abuse of the House if a Minister, by giving inordinately long answers, is able to protect himself from full cross-examination on a highly contentious matter.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you also consider the episode regarding the Prime Minister's statement after her return from the Athens summit? Will you measure the number of lines taken by the Leader of the Opposition and compare them with the number taken by the Prime Minister? If you do so, you will realise that there is some equity in these matters.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: As, Mr. Speaker, you are to be asked to examine all of these lines in Hansard, many column inches and to rule on God knows what else before Christmas, will you take into account the fact that when the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport, (Dr. Owen) was the Foreign Secretary, he used to make long, fudging and mudging answers?

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps I can content myself by saying that I have, of course, studied Hansard, as I do every day. I have been somewhat perturbed at the length of questions and answers at Question Time as well as after statements. The House would help the Chair and itself if questions and answers could be shorter, as many more hon. Members could then be called.

Orders of the Day — Sex Equality Bill

Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Mr. Eric Forth (Mid-Worcestershire): As I address the House for the first time, I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members who take a pride in identifying accents will quickly recognise that I have the honour to represent the new Mid-Worcestershire constituency.
I am delighted to be able to pay tribute to my predecessor in that constituency—Sir Herbert Whitely—who represented it from 1916. I suspect that even senior right hon. and hon. Members will not remember him. Although he is strictly my immediate predecessor it gives me greater pleasure to pay tribute to those from whom I have inherited my constituency. The first is my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy, who now represents the Worcester constituency, who is a distinguished member of the Cabinet and for some 22 years assiduously represented a part of what is now my constituency. The second is my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Miller) who is a distinguished Back Bencher of great integrity who has worked hard on behalf of the people of Redditch. I am aware that I shall find it difficult to follow my distinguished colleagues, but I shall do my best to try to maintain their standards of representation.
My constituency was originally to have been named Redditch and Droitwich as those towns comprise about 85 per cent. of the electorate in Mid-Worcestershire. Redditch is one of the best examples of a new town. It is well planned and well built and has moved away from its traditional industry of needle making. It has diversified into several light industries and is ideally poised in the midlands to take advantage of the economic recovery that we are now experiencing. Droitwich has Roman origins and is now working hard to develop its tourist industry on the basis of its spa and the brine baths which were the origin of the salt industry on which it lived for many centuries.
I cannot leave the subject of my constituency without mentioning some of the villages. Hartlebury, Ombersley, Himbleton, Fernhill Heath and many others make up the new constituency of Mid-Worcestershire in the heart of England.
It gives me great pleasure to address the House for the first time during this debate as the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) was my opponent in the two general elections of 1974. Although it has taken me nine years to catch up with her, I am delighted to participate in this debate. I must crave some indulgence of the House as it is remarkably difficult to be uncontroversial in a maiden on sex. I might try the patience of right hon. and hon. Members almost beyond endurance. If I stray across some of the conventions of the House I hope that I shall be forgiven, but that is almost inevitable when making a maiden speech on this subject.
In many ways, the Bill epitomises one of the regrettable tendancies of politics today — the increasing gulf between rhetoric and aspirations on the one hand and reality and practicality on the other. It is most unfortunate that politicians of all parties feel obliged or tempted increasingly to claim what they will or intend to do whereas in reality they are quite unable to live up to or

deliver what they promise. The Bill is a perfect example of that. We are now in the difficult and delicate business of attempting to legislate for human behaviour. We are in danger of adding to the behavioural interference industry which is already established in Britain.
I refer, for example, to the Equal Opportunties Commission which already costs about £3 million a year to run and the Commission for Racial Equality which costs about £8 million. The Bill proposes to add to that cost although experience in many other parts of the world, such as Title 7 in California, has shown that such attempts fail. Such measures have disappeared in a welter of argument and counter-argument from which the only beneficiary is the legal profession. There is a serious risk that what the Bill proposes will end up in much the same way.
The Bill will also add serious additional burdens to those already faced by industry when we are worried about employment. We all want industry to be helped as much as possible to provide more jobs. Anything which prejudices that must be examined carefully and secptically. Many of the Bill's provisions would seriously prejudice industry's ability to be flexible, meet the needs of the future and provide employment. In that regard, I refer to one of the most difficult provisions in the Bill—the attempt to give home workers equal status with other employees. Such a provision would seriously prejudice the employment opportunities which are available to those who work at home. Moreover, it would create serious difficulties for employers who use home workers extensively. If such a provision were accepted, we should have to ensure that all of the health and safety at work provisions and the rest were implemented in every home where people work. If we impose one provision, we must impose them all. Following that line of argument, it is already obvious that we shall have great difficulty in implementing such a provision properly. There is also a danger of giving people false hopes that we shall improve something when we are patently unable to do so.
The provision of paternity leave would also put a heavy burden on industry. Annual reporting to the commission would create more bureaucracy when we are trying to reduce the burden of paperwork on industry. Providing that arrears should be paid as far back as 1976 could also be a heavy burden.
The hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) mentioned sexist calendars. This is a serious question. Are we contemplating making illegal calendars that portray men, women or anything else, and preventing them from being shown in places of work? That is the implication of what the hon. Lady said, If we are to make words such as "waiter" and "stewardess" illegal or the basis of a case for discrimination, that is going much too far in the direction of trying to legislate for behaviour and the way in which people speak.
However well intentioned, the Bill is yet another step along the road to additional bureaucracy and burdens on industry. It will not achieve its aim, but will be counterproductive. Living as I do in a society in which the Queen, the Prime Minister, my wife, my daughters and my mother are all female, I still find it in my heart to oppose the Bill.

Mr. Michael Foot: The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) delivered his maiden speech with great facility and confidence I offer


him the customary congratulations that we give to maiden speakers. I am sure that the way in which he spoke commended itself to the House and that he will speak frequently in future.
It is alleged that maiden speeches are never controversial, but I hardly remember a maiden speech that has not been controversial. I do not mean any discourtesy to the hon. Gentleman, but I think that the best part of his speech was that it was controversial, although I disagree with some aspects of it. Those who look back at when I made my maiden speech a long time ago will see that it was also controversial. All maiden speakers should seek to emulate that feature.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) on the choice of her Bill, the form of it and the way in which she presented it. She knows as much about this subject as anybody in the country. She put her case with great skill and determination. Even if my hon. Friend does not succeed immediately, I believe that she will succeed in the end. I look forward to the time when she will sit in a Labour Cabinet and be able to carry through the parts of the Bill that were not previously put on the statute book.
The Minister's speech was shocking and disgraceful. It dealt inadequately with the subject. I hope that the Government will have second thoughts about the way in which they treat the Bill. Some parts of it can be altered in Committee. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be prepared to listen to any representations that are made in Committee. Many parts of the Bill should be placed speedily on the statute book. If the substance of the Bill were placed on the statute book in this Parliament, it would be far and away the major measure carried through during this period. Therefore, I hope that the Government will think again.
The more we listened today to the range of issues covered in the Bill, which need to be covered to establish the principle of sex equality in the law, our practice and our custom, the more we could understand why it is necessary to have a spokesman for women's rights and a Minister responsible for such problems. I am not in favour of having specific Ministers to deal with all the various problems, although in some cases the appointment of a Minister to consider such matters has been extremely effective. One case was the appointment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) as Minister responsible for the disabled. I can say from experience as a member of the Government, and before, that if it had not been for his pressure and determination, the way in which he constantly brought the matter before his colleagues, both in opposition and in government, and the work that he did, there would not have been the improvements for the disabled that there have been in the past four or five years. That is one area in which legislation and the appointment of a Minister can help.
I should like to give a direct answer to what the Minister and the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire said about race discrimination. They should have been present, as some of us were, over many years when private Members introduced Bills on race discrimination. I remember how the present Lord Brockway introduced on 10 occasions in successive years a private Member's Bill to try to put on the statute book what was eventually put on it by the

Government of the day. Now, no one in the House proposes to repeal the laws against race discrimination. I believe that the fate of the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Barking will be the same as that of Lord Brockway's Bill. Just as in race discrimination it is necessary to have the assistance of the law to sustain decent behaviour, so that is also necessary with sexual equality. That applies to much of the Bill, particularly the part that deals with equal pay.

Mr. Alan Clark: It is my good fortune and that of the House that the right hon. Gentleman should attend our Friday debate. I intervene only in case he cannot stay until the end of the debate, to remind him of one thing. Both the statutes that touch on this subject were passed by Labour Governments. I cannot remember which position the right hon. Gentleman occupied in 1970, but I do remember the position that he held in the Cabinet in 1975. Is he now telling us that the Equal Pay and Sex Discrimination Acts are both unsatisfactory and grossly overdue for reform? I do not remember him making those points during the lifetime of the Government in which he served.

Mr. Foot: Of course, I shall seek to deal with both matters. I thought that the Minister would understand from what I have already said that I was intending to do so. I am not running away from my responsibilities. Indeed, I am proud of the legislation that we put on the statute book, but I want it to be carried forward on the basis of experience. It is my full intention to stay until the end of the debate, unlike Ministers who make their speeches and then go off.

Mr. Clark: I did not.

Mr. Foot: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has done so. Will the Secretary of State for Employment attend the whole debate? He was here at the beginning. I hope that he will be here all through the debate. I shall not be rebuked by the Minister over whether I shall listen to the wind-up speech. Of course I shall be here, and I shall deal with the subjects that he mentioned.
It is important that there should be a spokesman for women's rights in the Government. The best Cabinet position for such a spokesman is in the Department of Employment. The gravest injustices occur in employment. When there is a new Labour Government, we will have a spokesman for women's rights in the Cabinet to deal with the range of subjects in the Bill, but specifically and preeminently having control and influence on the subject of employment. Of course, I mean a reconstituted Department of Employment, not the present poor, pathetic thing.
I do not know who would be qualified to be a proper Secretary of State for Employment under the present Government. Perhaps only Pontius Pilate could do the job, especially now that King Herod has been moved to another Department. However, even he could not do the job properly because it is apparently the intention of the Department of Employment — we have seen it in a number of areas—to wash its hands of all these matters. The more those in the Department can shed their responsibilities in these fields, they believe, the better will be industrial relations and relations in matters such as we are discussing.
We in the Labour party take a different view. It is based on experience. I shall deal shortly with the experience we gained in 1970, and 1975 in putting the Equal Pay Act on to the statute book.
The Government have much more immediate responsibilities. What are they going to do? The way in which the Secretary of State shook his head during my hon. Friend's speech—that is the only contribution that he has so far made—suggests that he believes that the equal pay provisions and the regulations are quite satisfactory. I am sorry that the regulations were passed through this House, but they have been subject to detailed investigation in another place. The sign made by the Secretary of State seems to mean that the Government intend to take no notice of the speeches and the vote in the House of Lords and that they plan to go ahead on the basis that what they are doing is legal, even though many experts think that that is not true.
The debate in the House of Lords was remarkable. Everyone should obtain a copy because it will become a very valuable document. In the House of Lords, the Government's case was torn to tatters on every side. A Government who do not listen to such a debate are not fit to discharge their responsibilities. Lord McCarthy and Lord Wedderburn put the case in the House of Lords. They know much more about these matters than all the members of the Government rolled into one. They commanded the spport not only of the majority of the House but of Lord Denning. A Denning come to judgment—that is what the Government were faced with in the House of Lords.
Nevertheless, the Minister has apparently indicated to us that the Government plan to go ahead without taking any notice. Do they understand what that means? It is quite possible that they will be hauled up again before the European Court, but that may be the least of their difficulties. What about all the injustices that will be inflicted on women trying to fight for their rights in courts through the complexities and what Lord Denning called the tortuosities of the law — a law which cannot be understood even by the judges? [AN HON. MEMBER: "Ridiculous."] It is not ridiculous. No one who reads the House of Lords report can fail to share my judgment. People should read the summary made by Lord McCarthy at the end of the debate. He also cited Lord Denning. He went on:
The objective of that view, if the House agrees with us, is, I suggest that the Government should take some notice of that view and that they should take the regulation away. Of course, there are a wide range of things that they can do with the regulation".
I suppose that he was not entitled to say in the House of Lords what those things are. He added:
It is not for me to say exactly what they should do at this time of night. There are parts of the regulation that they could just drop— the pre-hearing pre-hearing. There are parts of the regulation that they could rewrite".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 December 1983; Vol. 445, c. 929.]
He then described the parts to which they could apply that treatment. After such a debate, such a vote, and such intellectual condemnation of what they are proposing, and after an indication of what will be involved in the courts if the Government go ahead, it will be a scandal for the House of Commons to tolerate it.
The Government have now been offered a way out. Instead of denouncing the Bill as a whole, the Minister should have said that the Government are prepared to take

account of the objections to the regulations and that they are trying to learn from what happened in the House of Lords and see whether the Bill can be of use.
If the Government proceed with the regulations after that condemnation, it will be an outrage to individuals and an insult to Parliament as a whole. The Minister intervened to suggest that in some way or another I was criticising clauses in the Equal Pay Act. That Bill was introduced by Barbara Castle in 1970 and was to be carried into effect in the 1970s. I carried it into effect. There is nothing to apologise for in details of the legislation. In 1974 and in 1975–76, when we were beginning to put the Bill into operation, greater progress was made in moving towards equal pay than at any previous or subsequent period.
The legislation was not a complete solution. There were many who said that it should go further. What has happened in the European Court proves that it was not a final way of dealing with the question. But my hon. Friend the Member for Barking is proposing ways in which we could go forward on this front. Far from opposing the Bill because it goes further than what we were able to attempt in 1975 I am very much in favour of going ahead.
The Minister talks as though some criticism could be made of what we did in that period. When we introduced the Bill in 1970 and carried it further in 1975, some people objected. They said that it would not make any difference. We have heard that argument today from the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire, and others. They say that the legislation does not matter and that what is important is the behaviour of employers. The same argument was used against the Equal Pay Act by Conservatives and others. Perhaps that was why it took us so long to put the measure on the statute book.
The Conservatives have all been converted now. I do not believe that any of them would be prepared to say that they are opposed to the Equal Pay Act. However, they seem to be opposed to its improvement. We do not believe that the regulations constitute an improvement in any sense. It is shameful for the Government to proceed in that way. They should proceed on the lines that my hon. Friend has proposed to the House today. When he winds up, the Minister should give a commitment that he will not proceed with the unworkable regulations but that he will go away, as the House of Lords advised, and produce new regulations. In doing so, I ask him to consider whether he could not welcome the clauses in my hon. Friend's Bill that deal with equal pay and which would take us a stage further.
The Bill contains many other matters of great importance.

Mr. Ernie Roberts: Would not my right hon. Friend agree with my experience, as a national trade union leader in engineering, that changes are needed in the Act to compel employers to do what the House intended the Act should do — give equal pay for work of equal value to the women of Britain?

Mr. Foot: Many features of the 1970 Act and the 1975 legislation could be improved. That is what I am trying to underline.
It has been suggested that in many respects we are far ahead of public opinion. Indeed, no doubt that claim will be made by the Conservative party. However, in many respects we are far behind opinion and practice in other


countries. For example, we lag far behind the practice in many European countries, in seeking practical ways of providing real equality in Britain.
This morning I listened to a programme on the radio in which somebody described the provision of nursery education in Britain. Some Labour-controlled authorities have moved ahead, while some other parts of the country have lagged shamefully behind. In some areas there is no provision whatever for any type of nursery education. That means that standards of administration generally and of social service are deplorable. It also means that women are being denied the right to choose. They apparently have the right to choose whether they want to work, how to bring up their children, and how to secure the best benefits for them, but by being denied nursery education for those children, the mass of women are in reality denied such choices. As has been pointed out, most of the arguments are 10 or 20 years out of date. In the past 10 or 15 years, the way in which women work has been transformed. The only people who fail to understand the problem are the Government. The Bill represents one way of shaking even this Government.

Miss Janet Fookes: In approaching this Bill or any other legislation of a similar character, I start from one basic proposition: a woman should not suffer disadvantage in any area unless it can be shown that her sex is relevant. The classic example, of course, is that of a woman trying to play a man's role in a theatre or film part. However, I suspect that there are very few such examples. Therefore, we should keep that principle well and truly in the forefront of our minds. With that, I put the following proposition: that recruitment and promotion should proceed on the basis of merit alone.
I should have thought it hard for anyone to disagree with those two propositions. However, if any hon. Member disagrees, I should prefer it if he would intervene now. The real difference of opinion may lie in how those two propositions are interpreted and in how far the law is a suitable vehicle for them. Given the hazards of a private Member's Bill, I am sorry that the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) should have sought to cover quite so much. I should have liked a simple marrying together of the Sex Discriminaton Act and the Equal Pay Act, with certain limited useful improvements attached to them, together with better and simpler drafting. Perhaps because I chair so many Committees, I am particularly sensitive about drafting and its clarity. It is true that it is possible to amend a Bill in Committee, but I suspect that this Bill's drafting is so defective that it would take more than a Committee to deal with it satisfactorily. However, I am more concerned with the substance of the Bill.
It would have been a service to the women of this country if there had been a real opportunity of putting a Bill on the statute book that brought those two Acts together, so that everybody knew exactly where they stood in those admittedly limited areas. As it is, I can see the Bill foundering, and so we shall not progress in the way that I should have liked.
One point is of particular concern to me, and I was glad to find it included in the Bill. I refer to equal pay for work of equal value. My Government's record on that is not particularly heroic. They should have taken the

opportunity of seeking to comply with the European Court's judgment by introducing a proper Act themselves rather than seeking to rely on an order. I have made that point forcibly to the Government both formally and informally. I suppose that half a loaf is better than none, but I regret that the Government sought to take that course of action, as it represents an opportunity missed.

Mr. Jim Craigen: The hon. Lady has been very fair in making that admission. The Government told the Select Committee on Employment that they were taking the exceptional route of the equal pay order partly because of a lack of time in the previous Parliament. However, that need not apply to an incoming Parliament, as the Government have cleared much of their earlier legislation. Does the hon. Lady still think that Ministers might be open to persuasion and might agree with the TUC, the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Institute of Personnel Management that this whole area of legislation should be properly reviewed?

Miss Fookes: It is not for me, as a Back Bencher, to speak on behalf of the Government. I shall leave that to the Minister who has responsibility for replying to the debate. However, by the same token, it would have been difficult for the Government to refuse the Bill a passage if it had done what I suggested, and had limited its contents to the Acts that are already on the statute book, with such improvements as equal pay for work of equal value added. That gap must be closed rapidly.
I have considerable sympathy with the point that was made about homeworkers. I am not sure that the solution that the Bill offers is right. I think that it goes too far in the opposite direction. There are undoubtedly differences between employing people who work in their homes and employing people in a central place of work. Nevertheless, it is clear that some homeworkers are exploited. I should like to give one admittedly anecdotal example. I met a lady who went in for exquisite hand knitting. She worked at home for some organisation. I did not inquire about its name. However, the amount that the firm paid her was ludicrous. I worked out the hours that she spent on very elaborate patterns. Indeed, I was duly impressed, because I can scarcely knit a dishcloth—the simplest thing of all.
The work probably took that lady about 100 hours, for which she received the princely sum of about £20. It does not need any great mathematical ability to work out how little she received per hour. On my advice, the lady wrote to the firm saying that she was no longer prepared to work for it on that basis. I have tried to put work in her way that offers a more reasonable level of remuneration. I know personally of that example, but I believe that similar examples can be found time and again in all sorts of areas. In this era, that is not good enough. In the Bill's laudable ambition to put that right, I fear that it has gone so far the other way that it may, as hon. Members have said, put many people out of work. Therefore, the Bill requires a more balanced judgment in that respect.
I am distinctly unhappy about some aspects of the Bill. I refer to the introduction of the new concept of sexuality as opposed to the sex of the person. Of course I understand that homosexuals feel aggrieved when they suffer disadvantages despite the fact that their private sexual propensities have no bearing on the job. As the Bill is drafted, it must include posts where that is a matter of importance.
A proper intervention was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mrs. McCurley), who referred to those with teaching responsibilities who have youngsters under their control. We must protect young people from unwelcome sexual advances, whether they come from lusty young men eyeing young girls or from those of another sexual persuasion. I understand that the Bill would make it impossible to deal with those approaches. Furthermore, I suspect that it would lead to real difficulties in the armed services. That is another reason why we should consider the issue closely.
I would not argue in favour of sexual harassment of women at work, but I suspect that it is extraordinarily difficult to frame legislation satisfactorily to deal with all the permutations. For example, what of those ladies—let us frankly admit that they exist—who spend their time running after men and sexually harassing them? In other words, this is an extraordinarily difficult area in which to work. I suspect that it would be better to make sexual harassment a ground for unfair dismissal where it exists and to leave it at that. I do not think that it is possible to outlaw it completely whatever the circumstances. It is a pity that reference has been made to sexual calendars. That is a frivolous point which has no bearing on the real and important issues before us.
I think that current legislation in the form of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 covers the main issues worrying the hon. Member for Barking. What we need above all else is a change in attitude. I believe that that is coming about, but I am not sure that there is anything further that can be done by means of legislation to give women greater opportunities in areas that are traditionally not occupied by them—for example, engineering and scientific subjects.
Why should there be rehearsed in so comprehensive a Bill a prohibition upon women working underground in coal mines? It is a piece of protectionism which was invaluable in its day but which in these days is unnecessary and incompatible with the general spirit and clauses of the Bill, particularly in the working of new coal mines and when women are hoping to act as engineers, for example. I find that an odd quirk in the Bill.

Mrs. McCurley: Does my hon. Friend agree that the probable reason for discrimination in coalmines is that miners have a heavy political influence within the Labour party and are in themselves discriminatory?

Miss Fookes: That is an excellent point and perhaps it can be dealt with by Labour Members.
I find myself in a real dilemma in considering how to vote on the Bill. I applaud, as I think my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State did, the spirit and intention behind the Bill, but I am concerned about the various practical aspects which have been dealt with in my speech and in the speeches of others. However, I am prepared to vote in its favour on the basis that the Government need a little whipping up to go further in promoting sex equality.

Miss Betty Boothroyd: We have had a most refreshing admission from the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) and we are grateful to her for that. Largely because of the Minister's earlier intervention, and though I understand he has had

to leave the Chamber, I must place on record the fact that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends regard the Sex Discrimination and Equal Pay Acts as little more than a framework on which to build. That has always been the attitude of many of us to those measures.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) for providing the opportunity to debate these issues, for the sincerity of her speech and for her superb sense of humour in dealing with some of the more ludicrous attitudes to which we tend to cling. The way in which my hon. Friend steered us through a Bill which is undoubtedly complicated was admirable.
I want to turn first to the educational provisions. I believe that we are beginning to see some traces of segregation breaking down in our schools between "girls'": subjects and "boys"' subjects. This is to be advanced rapidly if we are to make any progress in breaking down job segregation. The period of school life is a major avenue through which girls develop their expectation of the future. It is in our own best interests to ensure that the facilities are available to provide girls with the skills to develop their awareness, and to stimulate ambition which is appropriate to meet the needs of Britain in the 1990s. There is evidence from some areas that where schemes to encourage girls in maths and sciences are implemented they result in increasing demand for further training in those disciplines.
I understand that next year is to be recognised as Women in Science and Engineering Year. Sympathetic teachers in schools which do not regard girls as strange if they pursue non-traditional courses can make an enormous difference. But I should like to hear about the Government's plans for the Women in Science and Engineering Year. It is for the Government positively to respond in the coming year to ensure that curricula and facilities are available for pupils and teachers to enable them to respond to the opportunity. A positive start could lead to more young women being encouraged to take up training and to enter the related industries at all levels.
Many of us are likeminded in that we recognise that laws by themselves do not provide a sufficient mechanism to end discrimination in any area, and certainly that of education. However, the backing of the law is important in bringing more action from Government — for example, from Government inspectors — and from teaching organisations and in teacher training.
But crucial to progress in this area is a change in attitudes. Some parents do not rate their daughters' personal achievements as high as they rate their personal relationships. Too often girls are reminded—sometimes through the home and sometimes by means of outside pressures and influence—that the way to a boy's heart is not to beat him in the chemistry examination.
Several hon. Members have mentioned homeworkers. Only last week a young woman told me about a small knitwear company that owns two boutiques in the Knightsbridge area. It employs homeworkers to knit picture sweaters—the beautiful, colourful sweaters that need a great deal of work. They are given the materials to make the sweaters, but they must make up their own patterns. The firm has a policy of not using women who live in London, because they would be able to see those sweaters in the shops in the West End. The firm employs only women who live in the provinces, because it pays


them only £12 for each sweater, but I saw them priced in a Knightsbridge shop yesterday at £205 each. That is indeed exploitation.
I turn to those employment provisions in more general terms. I was brought up in a textile town, and both my parents worked in that industry. When I was young my father was out of work for long periods. He did not have a bike, but he walked many miles in search of a job. My mother always had a job in the mill, and I have early memories of her telling me that she was employed not for her sex appeal but because her pay was lower than my father's would have been. She worked for a pittance, but she was the breadwinner of our family. Sadly, we have now come full circle, and in many families the wife and mother brings home the only pay packet, although that is well below equivalent male earnings. Any move towards equality in earnings has come to a halt.
Many hon. Members have talked about the convoluted progress of equal pay arrangements through Parliament. Perhaps the Government will accept that what we now need is not a field day for Philadelphia lawyers but, as Lord Denning said, some clear and intelligible legislation which ordinary people and tribunals can understand and implement. At present the legislation is an obstacle course, with the hurdles stacked so high against a claimant in an equal pay case that there must be serious doubt about the Government's determination not to deprive women workers of their rights. The debate in the House of Lords and the action taken there only this week cannot be ignored by the Government and should not be glossed over by the Minister who replies to the debate. I hope that he or she will give the House a clear statement.
Clause 7 deals with marital status, and separates it into the conditions of being married, not married, separated, divorced or in widowhood. In this matter I take the devil's advocate approach and give as examples discrimination as it affects many hon. Members. All hon. Members, irrespective of sex, make the same basic contribution to the occupational pension scheme. On retirement, the pension is available to all hon. Members, irrespective of status. On death, it is inherited by the spouse, but an hon. Member of a different marital status can nominate no one to inherit the pension in the event of death, so no one can benefit even for a short period from the substantial contributions that have been made during his working life. I do not quarrel with the concept of inheritance by the spouse, but the system discriminates against those hon. Members who do not fall into the category of "married marital status". We should also find a means to recompense them in the years of early retirement in such cases.
here is a further point of annoyance. Parliament will soon have provisions enabling a married Member with two children to receive 45 free travel warrants each year for the family to journey to and from Westminster. I do not deny the need for such benefits, but why should not all hon. Members have them? Would it not be closer to natural justice, and in the interests of equity of status, that those benefits should be shared with unmarried Members? Is it not time that we treated people as human beings in their own right and not as appendages to each other?
I hope that the Bill will reach Committee and that we can iron out many of the discriminatory practices that are widespread in society and which I can describe only as sheer humbug.
Although the Bill has many imperfections, I accept the principle that lies behind it. My hon. Friend the Member for Barking admitted at the outset of her speech that the Bill is imperfect; but what private Member's Bill is not?We cannot accept indefinitely a system that denies to more than half of the population natural justice and equality of opportunity. My main concern is to ensure that the women whom I represent, and their daughters and granddaughters, are assured of a just future in which they can develop their talents, in a society where the hurdles that they must surmount are of equal height. To aim for anything else would impoverish our national life.
John Stuart Mill put it more precisely than I could when he wrote:
There is not such an abundance of talent in the world that we can afford to restrict our area of choice to one half of the available supply.
The law has a part to play, but it could fairly be said that the answer often lies with women themselves. After all, every male chauvinist is some woman's son, and if he has grown up in the belief that her place is at the kitchen sink she has largely herself to blame.
I welcome the Bill, and I hope that many Conservative Members will support it.

Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: With my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes), I too am in a dilemma about the Bill. I have always been a firm advocate of women's rights, and I have been a member of the Business and Professional Women's Organisation for the past 20 years. I have campaigned and spoken on the subject in many forums. I would even go so far as to say that, had women not already got the vote, I would have been a keen supporter of the suffragette movement, and a militant supporter at that.
However, I have the greatest doubts about the success of legislation to promote, support and implement women's rights and equality opportunities, and to prevent sex discrimination. If the Bill is given a Second Reading today, do we imagine that our male colleagues will give up their seats so that about 325 women can enter the Chamber? I should welcome comments on that.
I have never been asked to provide a male guarantor for any financial transaction, but the record is not good. Whether that is the fault of legislation or the fault of enforcement methods, I am not sure. I agree that in many areas women are sometimes to blame. I suspect that industry has paid lip service to the concept of equal pay for equal work. That must be put right. I am firmly of the opinion that the Equal Opportunities Commission is a disappointment to many. It has become the source of absurd cases of discrimination which cause public annoyance and amusement.
My dilemma is that the Bill is too wide-ranging with its 97 clauses. I support many of the changes proposed, as they are warranted, but they require further consideration. I support many of the proposals on employment, especially as they affect pensions. I certainly support the concept of equal pay for equal work and I agree that the pay of homeworkers must be considered carefully.
I believe that a statutory two-week paid paternity leave is nonsense. I go further— I have the gravest doubts about the working of the present maternity scheme. It is not always as helpful to women as it should be. Industry does not welcome such statutory provision, nor do many of our education services. The scheme is disruptive and inflationary.
I have had two children. On both occasions my husband managed to bring me home from hospital, put me through the front door and then returned to his job, leaving me to get on with the children. If a husband wants to be with his family at such a time—we believe in freedom of choice and opportunity — most women would make the necessary arrangements. There is no reason why a man should not take some of his annual leave at that time. That has happened over many years and is not a new concept. Many men are happy to do that. Legislation will not help.
I recognise our obligations to Europe and there could, therefore, be reason to support the Bill, but it is much too all-embracing. For instance, why must it cover homosexuality? That problem stands on its own and may or may not warrant further investigation. If it does, it should be discussed separately and separate legislation, if necessary should be introduced. That matter should not be included in the Bill.
The Government are firmly committed to a policy of equal opportunities for women. I recognise, as do the Government, the important contribution that women make to the economy. The Equal Pay regulations, recently considered in the other place, appear to meet our European obligations and make some of the Bill unnecessary. Because of that, and because the Bill is too wide-ranging, I cannot give it my support in its present form, which I sincerely regret.

Mr. Jack Ashley: The hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) said that she might have been a suffragette. She would not have been a very good one because the suffragettes were nothing if they were not all-embracing, and she objected to the Bill because, she said, it was all-embracing. The suffragettes did not play about with ifs and buts. They fought for what they believed in, and therefore while I welcome the hon. Lady's support for some parts of the Bill, I regret that she was not prepared, as my hon. Friends are, to go all the way in placing, or trying to place, on the statute book a measure that is valuable, worthwhile and all-embracing.
I offer my warm congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) on the selection of the Bill and her presentation of it, which was supberb. Her attitude was in striking contrast to that of the Prime Minister, who said on 26 July last year that the battle for women's rights "has been largely won". How absurd, especially coming from a woman Prime Minister.
The regrettable fact is that many women and men agree with that statement. Indeed, some people think that the fight for women's rights has gone too far. That is the measure of how far some people have been brainwashed. I believe that the war for women's rights has not yet got beyond the phoney stage and that the position of women in Britain, even after the passage of two major Acts, is inferior.
That position reflects most men's view of women and, I am afraid, most women's acceptance of that view and the acceptance and holding of that view brings discredit on

both men and women. There are, however, exceptions, and I see many of them on the Opposition Benches. I am delighted with the efforts that my hon. Friends are making. But the fact is that the vast majority of women have limited and often minimal freedom to explore their working potential and use their talents properly.
Women are affected by social pressures, education attitudes, having children, and of course by appalling prejudice at their workplace. There has been some progress and, as my hon. Friends have said, the two Acts are a beginning, a basic framework. However, they are wholly inadequate and full of loopholes. Anybody, especially a determined employer, can avoid the provisions and take advantage of the inadequacies.
The Equal Pay Act is a thicket for women and any obdurate employer can easily make it impenetrable. All that he need do is keep men out of women's work and make sure that there is no job evaluation.
The Bill is a refreshing change because it is designed to achieve equality rather than a patchwork, and of all its provisions perhaps the most important is the amalgamation of the two Acts. That is vital because it will enable claims to be made in respect of indirect discrimination and will introduce the hypothetical man into equal pay cases.
Pay is the crux of discrimination against women. In our society, pay is not just the reward for value given. It is a measure of assumed worth, a symbol of value, a status rating in society, and women in Britain will never make the breakthrough, will never feel like equals and will never be treated as equals until they get genuine equal pay. That is the basic issue that we face today.
Mention has been made of vulnerable groups such as part-time workers and homeworkers. I welcome that, because they are the most exploited groups. The General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union, by which I am sponsored, has been actively campaigning on behalf of homeworkers. It has found great difficulty in dealing with their problems because of the lack of legal protection for them. I am glad that provision has been made for those people. I welcome also the provisions to impose obligations on the Government and local authorities to review legislation.
I came across an example of discrimination in north Staffordshire just outside Stoke-on-Trent in the Wedgwood pottery factory. A while ago, some workers found pinned on the notice board of the Wedgwood pottery factory a notice which stated:
Under no circumstances must any female operative be allowed to commence work before 7 am. Neither must female operatives be allowed to work on Sundays. Asking these employees to start work at 6 am contravenes the Factories Acts.
The women at the Wedgwood factory are confined to certain working hours and are not allowed to work weekends, because the Factories Acts are being used against them.
When the Minister replied to my protests, he said that he had asked the Health and Safety Commission to look into the matter. In March 1979 the report of the Equal Opportunities Commission recommended legislation and the repealing of the Factories Acts. Nothing has been done since. There were four years of recommendations, but no action was taken. That type of delay would not be tolerated if men were involved, but because the recommendations were about discrimination against women action could be taken at a leisurely pace.
Some discrimination against women is due merely to indifference or incompetence. But we must recognise that some discrimination is due to a deliberate determination by men to discriminate. It is a matter of power, and far too many men enjoy exercising that power. Some of them relish discrimination. Some revel in it, some boast about it and some joke about it. Those men are little boys wearing long trousers. They are prisoners of their history. They are victims of their chauvinistic upbringing. They are psychologically incapable of treating women as their equals and are pathetic hangovers from a bigoted age. We are seeking to deal with those types of people. The fight against that type of evil and stupid discrimination must be fought. With those people in mind, and employers who are determined to use every device to avoid equality for women, the Bill is clearly necessary. It will not solve all the problems overnight, but it will lay a firm and fine foundation for the future.
The young women of today — and, happily, many older ones—are no longer prepared to accept a lifetime of discrimination based on flimsy pretexts, ministerial excuses and the outdated prejudices of some men. They want, and are entitled to have, a better and fairer future. It is time to set aside the excuses, the cant and the hypocrisy and to give them the new opportunities that the Bill goes a long way to provide.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Having heard the Opposition's strictures about cant and hypocrisy, one must ask why, if legislation on this is so urgent and important, it was not introduced by the Labour Government.
As an exercise in highlighting the disadvantages suffered by women in our society, especially at work, giving those disadvantages an airing in the House and concentrating our minds on what still needs to be done to remedy them, today's debate is an excellent opportunity and I congratulate the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) on taking it and I agree with much of what has been said by hon. Members on both sides. But as a serious attempt to process appropriate legislation on a Friday the Bill is a non-starter. Three major points must be made.
First, the Bill is very long. It has 67 pages of legislation containing 97 clauses and a 16-paragraph schedule, before any amendments or new clauses are added.

Ms. Richardson: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Lawrence: Perhaps the hon. Lady will forbear. My speech will be shorter if I am not interrupted and she will no doubt have an opportunity to comment further later. Secondly, the Bill is highly controversial. It not only introduces new ideas with far-reaching and expensive implications in many areas but develops existing attitudes beyond the stage hitherto considered acceptable. It will therefore be challenged. It will be challenged by employers whose limited freedom to run their businesses as they wish will be further restricted and who will have to spend more money to fulfil new statutory obligations. It will be challenged by those upon whom it loads further administrative burdens—in the private sector, in local government, in national Government and in nationalised industries—at a time when the Government are doing their utmost to contain public expenditure. The maternity

provisions alone will cost about £22 million. The Bill will also be challenged by those who see it as a further limiting of private behaviour and the exposure of such behaviour to court actions from which only lawyers emerge with smiles on their faces.
In case anyone thinks that this is a Bill sponsored by Labour Members and opposed only by Conservatives I assure them that the opposition will not come only from Conservatives. The great Labour movement has achieved very little recently to give women an equal status in Labour society. Perhaps the hon. Member for Barking will answer these questions in due course.
At the Labour party conference in September 1982, did even one motion aiming to give women greater responsibility at all levels in the Labour party meet with success? What happened to the motion requiring constituency parties to shortlist at least one woman when choosing a parliamentary candidate? It was defeated by 4,625,000 votes. The motion to give women more representation at all levels of the party was lost by 3,978,000 votes. The motion to give the women's conference the right to table and move annual conference motions was rejected by 5,795,000. The motion providing for the women's section of the national executive council to be elected by the women's conference was thrown out by 4,670,000 votes.

Ms. Richardson: That has nothing to do with the Bill.

Mr. Lawrence: I am on the subject of cant and hypocrisy.
That was last year's annual conference. What did this year's annual conference do to give women equal rights? The delegates were made up of 91 per cent. male trade unionists and 74 per cent. males from the constituency Labour and Socialist societies. Even in the House, only 10 out of 208 Labour Members are women. The motion for the women's section of the national executive council to be elected by women's organisation was rejected. The motion to instruct the NEC to convene a rules conference to draw up a constitution and rules for the women's organisation was thrown out. The motion giving the women's organisation the right to table five resolutions at the party conference was hammered into the ground. One delegate captured the television screens with a heartrending complaint that the Labour party was so sexist that whenever a woman went to speak on the rostrum she was called "Dear", and "Darling", and requests were made for her telephone number.
The pious words that we have heard from right hon. and hon. Members on the Labour Benches appear to be somewhat tainted with cant and hypocrisy. Perhaps the best indication of all is given in clause 24 of the Bill, which might be called the "Miners Clause". The miners are the last people who want to abolish discrimination and to have equality down their pits. A large proportion of miners, although fewer than before, are supporters of the Labour party.
So the Bill will be controversial. If it receives a Second Reading today, hon. Gentlemen and hon. Ladies on the Labour Benches might spend many a day and night in Committee. The avalanche of letters that will flood in to hon. Members will make the trauma we went through the last time the hon. Member for Barking had anything to do with a serious Friday measure seem like Nirvana and Valhalla rolled into one.
The third thing about the Bill is that it is certainly not one of those measures brought innocently before the House on a Friday with a reasonable chance of being passed as an ordinary, uncomplicated, uncontentious and utterly desirable piece of private Member's legislation. It has, on the contrary, been brought before the House by its sponsors, as a complicated measure, a measure which is the subject of much controversy on both sides of the House, with the sole intention of making mischief to embarrass the Government. One has only to look down the list of the Bill's sponsors to realise that it is mischevious. Apart from the hon. Member for Barking, there is the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett)— not here; the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman); the right hon. Member for Clydesdale (Dame J. Hart), who is no longer in the Chamber; the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs) — not here; the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) — not here; the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short)—not here; the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard)— not here; and the doyen of them all, the great showman himself who was here but has now gone, the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo). I make my apologies to other hon. Members, who are sponsors and are all members of the Left-wing Friday club outing which we see in this place from time to time.

Ms. Harman: rose ——

Mr. Lawrence: None of them are innocent about Friday's business.

Ms. Harman: Is it not the case that, by treating this Bill with contempt, the hon. and learned Gentleman is treating with contempt the plight of thousands and thousands of women who are appallingly badly paid whom the Bill might help, and the thousands and thousands of women who are forced to work in their homes whom the Bill might help? Is it not a disgrace that the hon. and learned Gentleman is treating not only the sponsors of the Bill in this way but all those women who would benefit if the Bill were passed?

Mr. Lawrence: If one small part of what the hon. Lady has said were true, no doubt the Labour Government would have introduced the measures in the Bill. The hon. Lady would not have been speaking to me here if the women in my constituency opposed me as strongly as she does. Much of what has been said in this debate has been important and valuable, but the subject is not appropriate to be dealt with by private Member's legislation on a Friday.
I shall not go through all 97 clauses and the 16 paragraphs of the schedule, but I shall draw attention to one or two of the absurd provisions.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) who said that merit should be the main test of whether women are employed. But clause 2(5) states:
For the foregoing purposes … a woman who is pregnant may be compared with a man".
Which man? Which of us is like a pregnant woman?
Paragraph (c) of the subsection states:
a person does not discriminate against a man if he treats a woman more favourably in connection with pregnancy and childbirth.
Does that mean that an employer cannot say no to employing a pregnant woman in any situation in which it

would be appropriate to employ a man? What sense does that make if we want a society in which work is efficient and the best person is chosen for the job?
One can surely be forgiven for thinking that clause 2(4) is a wide definition of sexual harassment. What are "sexual advances"? We can understand the meaning of "requests for sexual favours'`, but what is
other conduct of a sexual nature"?+
If an hon. Member thinks that his secretary is not up to her job and, because he wants to be nice, he smiles at her, could she go running off to complain that that was other conduct of a sexual nature"?
If so, who of us would be safe? Attempts just as bizarre as that have been made before industrial tribunals and we seem to have learnt nothing from the experience.
If we ever wanted an utterly impracticable and ridiculous clause we have it in clause 8. Subsection (6) states:
For the purposes of subsection (2)(c) a woman is to be regarded as employed on work rated as equivalent with that of any men if, but only if, her job and their job have been giver an equal value, in terms of the demand made on the worker under various headings (for instance effort, skill, decision making), on a study undertaken with a view to evaluating in those terms the jobs to be done by all or any of the employees in an undertaking or group of undertakings, or would have been given an equal value but for the evaluation being made on a system setting different values for men and women on the same demand under any heading.
That is nonsense. Apart from being practically incomprehensible it involves inventing a hypothetical man in a factory that employs only women, fixing a notional wage for that hypothetical man and basing a woman's pay on it.
If the aim of the Bill is to eliminate disadvantage based on sex, clause 9 dealing with homeworkers is a funny way to achieve it. Its effect would be to reduce the number of homeworkers and take jobs from women who are happy doing them.
Clause 13, on paid paternity leave, will be expensive for small businesses. Such a provision will interrupt production and discriminate unfairly against employees who are not fathers. Is that to be dealt with in Committee? If so, where are we to draw the line on the endless kinds of discrimination?
Clauses 3 and 92 on homosexuality will incur the fury of many of our constituents who do not want their children to be taught by people who parade their homosexuality and think that it is a matter for exhibition and pride. How many Members want their children to be taught by a member of the Paedophile Information Exchange?
Clause 32 prohibits the refusal of membership to clubs. The hon. Member for Barking recognised the absurdity of that when she said that it would not apply to organisations that want their members to be only women or only men. She should make up her mind what she wants and not waste the House's time while she tries to sort herself out.

Ms. Richardson: It is perfectly clear.

Mr. Lawrence: I have touched on only a few of the absurdities. The principal one would be the effect that the Bill might have on the existing interests of women. If, as a result of the Bill, women in work lost their jobs, as they would; if employers got fed up with harassment through the law and the expense of lawyers and decided not to bother and slowed down or closed their businesses and deprived people of jobs, as they might; and if there were


constant rows and ill-feeling because of private clubs, homosexuality and many other things with which the Bill deals, how will women be benefited?
The trouble with legislation such as this is that it ignores the necessarily slow but steady progress that the Government are making to remove unjust discrimination between the sexes. My hon. Friend the Minister has already outlined some of those provisions. The Bill will also tend to make people ridicule this serious subject and put back instead of advance the cause that the sponsors and many others hold dear.
Those of us who do not support the Bill will of course be attacked. Our time will be taken up answering countless unnecessary letters from people who have not read the Bill, on the quite ridiculous basis that we Conservatives oppose women's rights. We do not. None of us would dare to do that. Most of us have wives—indeed, many are working wives. We also have mothers, daughters and mothers-in-law. Moreover, Conservative Members have something that few Labour Members have—chairmen of women's divisional associations in our constituency parties. Those constituency women's organisations are in many cases entirely the reason why organisations of Conservatives are so efficient and effective that we win elections.
We have even elected a woman Leader and we have worked hard to make her Prime Minister twice. Perhaps she is the best Prime Minister Britain has ever had. It is even rumoured that when she was once asked how she managed to become Prime Minister of one of the great male-orientated societies on earth she said, "I prayed nightly to the Almighty and she answered my prayers."
The difference between most Conservative Members and Opposition Members is not that one group favours women's rights and the other does not. It is that we believe that those rights will not be won lastingly or gained genuinely if they are forced on a society that cannot afford to bear them and does not think that they are sensible. This Bill is, in a sense, an abuse of the private Member's Bill procedure. Because I believe that the Bill is nonsense and that it will set back rather than advance the cause of women's rights, I cannot and will not support it.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Hon. Members will be aware that fewer than 90 minutes of debating time remains and that many hon. Members wish to catch my eye. A lengthy speech is theft of another hon. Member's time.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: The trouble with the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) is that, despite his protestations about favouring equal rights for women, the substance of his speech was directed towards demolishing a Bill which intends to extend those rights. The hon. and learned Gentleman's speech called into question his motivation and the belief and experience through existing legislation that it is possible to extend the protection of women's rights.
The hon. and learned Gentleman's lawyer-like attempts at demolition followed the lead given by the Minister. The Minister and the hon. and learned Gentleman would have

been more candid if they had admitted that they are satisfied with the status quo and are not looking for amendment to the law. Such a stance is not defensible. In the light of our experience of the operation of the Equal Pay Act 1970 and the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 it is clear that extensive amendments are needed. People who are involved in the subject want them.
Therefore, I and my hon. Friends in the Social Democratic party and the Liberal party regard the proposal by the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) as a bold attempt to do something that the Government should have done. It is a bold attempt to consolidate the Equal Pay and Sex Discrimination Acts and to introduce further amendments in the light of experience of the working of those two Acts.
I compliment the hon. Lady on her Bill, but I regret that she has proceeded on such a narrow basis of party support. It was not necessary for her to choose only her colleagues from a narrow section of the Labour party to sponsor such an attempt to reform the law. The excellent speech by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) made it plain that the hon. Lady would have found support for her attempt from the Government Benches. She would certainly have found support from the Social Democratic party and the Liberal party if she had approached us.

Ms. Harman: Is not that a petty point? It was clear from the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) that a wide range of organisations in all parts of the spectrum, such as the Women's Institute, were involved in consultation and in the process of drawing up the Bill. The hon. Gentleman is seeking to make a minor party political point. It is also a cheap point.

Mr. Maclennan: With respect, the hon. Lady has not had as long experience as I have on private Members' Bills. I have successfully enacted two private Members' Bills, with all-party support. It is more important to legislate than to attitudinise about these matters. The hon. Member for Barking spoke about wide and extensive consultation during the drafting and preparation of the Bill. I think that her consultation was inadequate. That is reflected not only in the bad drafting of the Bill but in the fact that the consultation with the Equal Opportunities Commission was scant, to say the least. I understand that a letter was written to the chairman of the EOC in August saying that consultation would be welcome. The Bill was published only about a week ago, and I have been unable to discover that there was any consultation with the EOC, which has the most detailed knowledge of how the law operates in that area.
Therefore it is not surprising that the Bill, far from being a comprehensive measure as the hon. Lady described it, is by no means comprehensive in that it leaves out of consideration at least half the major points of reform to which the EOC attaches importance. Far be it for me to suggest that a private Member should tackle all those points in a private Member's Bill, but that lack of consultation and the open reliance upon a particular pressure group, the National Council for Civil Liberties, was a mistake. No doubt it has much that is useful to say, but it does not have the last word on these matters. However, I acknowledge and welcome its help. Much that it says is important and should be taken into account.
I speak with feeling on the question of partisanship in bringing forward these matters. From their birth—in the


statement of principles in the Limehouse declaration, and in their party's constitution—the Social Democrats have given voice and support to the need to protect against discrimination not only women but minorities as well. I am strongly in favour of giving the Bill a Second Reading, but it suffers from major omissions. It may be that some of the omissions are more important than what is included. There is nothing on the need for the reform of tax or social security provisions, which clearly should be tackled very soon.

Ms. Richardson: I explained the reason for that.

Ms. Harman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? He has made a mistake.

Mr. Maclennan: I have explained why I do not wish to give way again.
I recognise the value of the provisions on private clubs, for example, and I will support them. No doubt the restrictions can be very irritating. However, they bear no comparison in magnitude or importance to the appalling situation of women caring for elderly or disabled relatives. The Bill does not mention the problem of lack of control by women of their own money.

Ms. Harman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? He is misleading the House.

Mr. Maclennan: There is nothing in the Bill about joint taxation of spouses' incomes.

Ms. Richardson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way to my hon. Friend?

Mr. Maclennan: No reference is made to the EEC proposals in the directive on sex equality and taxation. That is a pity. These sedentary interventions may be referring to parts of the Bill——

Ms. Richardson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is misleading the House. Clearly he did not hear me say that private Members' legislation cannot spend massive amounts of public money. That is why I said that Government Departments have a duty to look at their legislation. I cannot do it; they must do it themselves.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Lady's intervention was unnecessary. I was about to address that point. There is a money resolution to the Bill, and a public expenditure implication. Secondly, there is the question of where the hon. Lady draws the line about what is included. She will agree that the Bill is extensive. It has over 90 clauses. However, the hon. Lady has been extremely arbitrary in her selection of which clauses are important.
The hon. Lady drew particular attention to some of the clauses, including clause 56(2), which imposes on Government Departments a duty to review their legislation. That is a useful exhortation but is scarcely capable, as it stands, of being translated into a legal obligation. It goes no way towards tackling the problems of tax discrimination, which must be tackled in a specific manner.
There are some other important omissions and mistakes of emphasis in the Bill. The Bill seeks to redefine the status of women in marriage. That is in itself an important change, and I welcome it, but it does not go nearly far enough. In seeking to outlaw discrimination, emphasis

should be placed on the important role that women have as carers, in particular, for children. It is unfortunate that in its attempt to redefine marital status, the Bill does not emphasise that point.
The enforcement provisions are weak and inadequate. I very much hope that the Bill will be given a Second Reading, and if it is, we shall have to return to that in Committee. The Social Democrats have proposed a much strengthened human rights commission, which would have the power to take up cases on behalf of individuals and to fight them through the courts. It is only by such powers that we can ensure that the Bill's aspiration to give greater equality to women can be realised.
The provision of equal pay for work of equal value is undoubtedly necessary. The Government failed to tackle the problem adequately in this House and in the other place. It is a great pity that they have not yet recognised the weight of legal opinion that holds that the order that they introduced does not satisfy the requirements of European law. The Government's obstinacy in persisting with an order that has been extensively criticised for the tortuosity not only of its language but of the procedures that will give effect to its provisions, means that a woman who claims that she has been discriminated against under the law on equal pay for work of equal value would have to take as many as 10 different steps in order to gain redress. That is a patent denial of justice, and I believe that it will be tested again soon, and that the issue will become a live one. That is one of the disadvantages of proceeding by way of secondary legislation. This House and the other place might have been able to improve a Bill to remove any ambiguities or doubts about its operation.
This Bill represents a bold and brave attempt to tackle our experience of the way in which the two Acts have worked. For that reason, it should be given our support. It is right to focus on discrimination in employment. It is discrimination in pay that probably cuts the deepest. In his initial remarks, the Minister explained the Government's hostility to the Bill. He did not take refuge in a principled opposition to its purpose, although he voiced one principle that had some force on the surface. He said that employment rights were no good without jobs. Of course I accept that such rights do not assist those not in employment. However, if that is invoked by any Government as a general principle, it is bound to act as an obstacle to the extension of equality through the law. That principle could have been invoked against the alteration of working conditions at any time in our history, as well as against the early Factory Acts and other legislation covering the employment of children, particularly forcing children to climb chimneys. It may not have been the Minister's intention to give that impression, but that classic argument is often adduced to oppose the development of the law.
The law is important not only for the protection of individual rights but for its educational value. That is one reason why Parliament must legislate somewhat in advance of public opinion. I disagree with Conservative Members who say that we must not follow opinion and must not legislate in advance of opinion. We were legislating in advance of opinion when we introduced the two Acts that the Bill seeks to consolidate. Let there be no doubt about that. When those measures were introduced the same arguments were advanced as those that we have heard today. However, they reached the statute book and they have enjoyed widespread support.

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman has importantly committed both his party and the Liberal party to support this measure. Will he specifically and expressly confirm that that support extends to the elimination of the exemption of small businesses from the provisions of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975?

Mr. Maclennan: No, I will not. To follow that sort of invitation is, in effect, to state precisely where one stands on each clause. To do so at this stage would be foolish. I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's question in Committee.
One of the clauses deals with discrimination on the ground of sexual preference. I am sure that there is a need for legislation in that area. However, I do not believe that this is the appropriate Bill in which to introduce it. If we start by incorporating into our domestic law the provisions of the European convention on human rights, a proposal which a number of Members on both sides of the House would support, we would take a massive step forward in protecting individuals and minorities who are being discriminated against on the ground of sexual preference. It is a mistake not to recognise that the categories against which discrimination continues are never closed. It is only by the incorporation of a Bill of Rights into our domestic law that we shall tackle that problem.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Barking on her assiduity and her objectivities in bringing forward the Bill, and I shall enjoy the opportunity, if it goes to Committee, of making it even more effective than it promises to be.

Mrs. Anna McCurley: The Bill that the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) has presented to the House is prodigious in its aims and I congratulate her on the effort which she has made. It is a pity that I, who have no wish to arrest the effort that is being made to remedy some of the appalling discriminations against my sex, feel unable to support it. There are many nuggets of good sense in the Bill but they are buried in an overwhelming mass of dross, mostly of an ill-conceived and illogical nature, which is heavy with feminist overtones.
I believe that the hon. Lady is doing the members of her sex a disservice by mixing sense with nonsense and bringing the case for the advancement of women's rights into general disrepute. To place the banalities of sexual harassment, which from time to time is only a matter of stimulus and response, in the same context as occupational rights and regulations, and placing the trivia of regulations to force privately run clubs to admit women in the same context as discussing the merits of complex pension and taxation rights, shows an over-inclusiveness that is unworthy of the hon. Lady.
I agree that there is a possible reason for the hon. Lady and her hon. Friends, especially her female colleagues, introducing the Bill. The hon. Lady is attempting to legislate for her own party's attitudes to women, which have been less than generous despite the banning of discrimination in the circumstances that have already been mentioned.
Unlike the Conservative party, which is dominated by women—some might say that it is manipulated by them —the Labour party keeps women under its thumb, to the extent that the majority of its regional officers are men. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton

(Mr. Lawrence) said, the equal representation legislation met with hostility from the Labour party. Discourtesies such as those endured by women attending the Labour party conference would not occur at a Conservative party conference, where equal respect is shown to the contributions of both sexes. I urge the public to consider that fact carefully when they decide which party will give them a better deal on female rights.
The Conservative party's legislative record is good; and if the legislation is sometimes cautious it at least avoids the trap of hasty, ill-conceived legislation and expensive wrangling in courts and tribunals, which has ruinous financial implications, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) said in his excellent maiden speech. Much of the legislation about which the hon. Lady is worried is already under review. As my hon. Friend the Minister said, much of it is being dealt with in response to EC directives. My hon. and noble Friend the Earl of Gowrie reaffirmed recently in another place the Government's commitment to equality.
However, the Bill is not all bad. I, too, hope that the humiliation of the household duties test on severely disabled women will be abolished as soon as possible. I understand that the financial implications of doing so would be high, and that the net benefit cost to the taxpayer of reducing the housewife's non-contributory invalidity pension with a universal non-contributory invalidity pension would be £275 million. However, I urge the Government to find a less distasteful method of assessment.

Ms. Richardson: My recollection may be wrong, but I understood that the Government abolished the household duties test and introduced, only 10 days ago, a new benefit, to cover disablement for men and women, although not universally.

Mrs. McCurley: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for partially correcting me. As I understood the legislation, the test has not been completely abolished.
I have already outlined my feelings about the homosexual legislation enshrined in the Bill, and I repeat that there are some jobs—especially in education and residential establishments—where it would be better to know the sexual proclivities of those who apply for posts. We must protect the innocent. They have not been so protected in the past, which has caused serious cases in my region.
Another problem with the Bill is that it seeks to end the exemption of small businesses from sexual discrimination legislation. If such businesses had to bear the additional burden of paternity leave, it could be highly destructive to jobs, especially in businesses that have not been going for long. Young businesses could be severely damaged by such legislation.
Maternity pay is 90 per cent. of a woman's salary and under the proposals a business would also bear the brunt of a man's two weeks' paid paternity leave. In addition there would be an extra demand for maternity leave since the qualifying period would drop from two years to six months.
Problems are already inherent in maternity leave. It may be unpopular for me to say this, but my former profession, teaching, is particularly bedevilled by the problem. Because of the high percentage of women of child-bearing age in that profession, it is impossible to


calculate from year to year how many teachers will be available. The continuous disruption and dislocation of classes has caused considerable problems for schools. If that were compounded by paternity leave and young male teachers were able to take two weeks' leave with pay the problem and disruption would increase.
Coal mines are regarded as a special case in the Bill. Why should not agriculture be regarded in the same light? Why confine the exemption to coal miners? There are political implications in that. I have been down a coal mine to a 26 in seam. I understand a little about the workings of a coal mine. I would rather work down a coal mine than be up to my neck in slush and mud in winter delivering cattle and sheep on the open hills.
The hon. Member for Barking also equivocates in her Bill on religious matters. She appears to be very careful not to offend the Church of England. Society's problem is that the traditional role of a woman as the nurturer of the family and the stable focal point in the home is under continuous threat. Part of the reason for the increased aggression in society today has to do with female emancipation and, indeed, additional female aggression. There appears to a correlation between sexual harassment and cases of rape and an increase in female emancipation, sexual liberation, call it what one will.
We must treat biology with kid gloves. I remind feminists that historically we cossetted men because from conception the female is stronger than the male. It is still a biological fact that more females than males are born and that there are fewer baby boys than baby girls. Only modern medicine helps them to survive.
The Bill is a legislative nightmare which attempts crudely to adust inequalities in existing legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) has proved that anti-discrimination legislation is working. The new Bill is too cumbersome and has to many clauses. Therefore I must oppose it.

Mr. Tom Pendry: I join others in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) on the way in which she presented the Bill. She covered many aspect of it in depth, as have others, but I shall concentrate on the problem of low pay for women, especially in the public sector.
I am the chairman of the NUPE-sponsored group in this House. My union has more than 470,000 women members, and therefore I can claim to know something of their problems. Although women represent about 41 per cent. of the British work force, they are largely concentrated in low-paid, unskilled areas of employment.
In 1981 the average wage for the working woman was 72 per cent. of the male rate. In 1983 her average earnings are still less than 74 per cent. of those of her male counterpart. Low pay is probably the greatest problem facing most working women in Britain, a problem that the exisiting legislation has failed to eradicate, and I doubt whether any hon. Member would deny that.
My union carried out a survey of the average earnings of men and women between April and November of this year. It found that the average man's wage went up from £167·50 to £174·40 and that the women's rate rose from £108·80 to £113·30. The discrepancies are blatant and shocking.
Further, there is a wide range of obstacles with which working women must contend. Women members of my

union, for example, are employed mainly in the National Health Service, local authorities and universities. Indeed, 60 per cent. of local government manual workers are part-time women workers, and part-time women workers have particular problems, as the House knows, perhaps nowhere more so than in the NHS. About 50 per cent of ancillary workers in the service are women part-time workers and nearly 90 per cent. of all nurses are women workers, although, strangely, men are over-represented in the higher grades of the nursing structure.
In the NHS, women are concentrated in the three ancillary grades, and that shows that job segregation exists, despite the legislation. This state of affairs should not be tolerated, and that is why we need the Bill. We need tighter legislation if we are to break the trap of job segregation and the unequal and low pay that characterise women's work.
The Equal Opportunities Commission and the TUC have seen a number of loopholes and practical problems that could be overcome by making the Sex Discrimination Act and Equal Opportunities Act work together, and I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) that a great virtue of the Bill is that it would amalgamate the existing sex equality legislation, with the additional improvements proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking. The simplification and clarification that her Bill represents would go a long way to improve matters.
The Bill stresses the concept of equal pay for equal value, and we have heard much today about the recent judgment of the European Court on the issue. It is strange that, although we hear so much from Conservative Members about the need to be good Europeans, we hear little from them about that ruling. The other place has demolished the arguments that the Minister made so limply today. Not only Lord Denning but, I believe, most lawyers realise that the legal procedures are so lengthy and complex that even they cannot understand them.
By contrast, the Opposition welcome the Bill's provisions as reflecting the spirit of the court ruling. By introducing the concept of the typical man, women can look at the pay that they would earn if a man did the same job. For the first time, the women in my union can look at what their jobs are really worth and what they would earn if those jobs were evaluated in the same way as men's jobs. If the Bill is passed, employers during negotiations will have to examine where women's jobs are undervalued and rectify the position.
The Opposition are in no doubt that it is unfair and wrong that jobs in which women predominate are undervalued in our society. Certain skills will always be more highly regarded than others, and that is obvious. However, there can be no justification for women's caring skills being less highly valued than the physical skills required in men's jobs.
With hindsight, most of us, including Conservative Members, would realise that it was criminal that Health Service members had to take industrial action last year for eight months to make the point that they, in that vital section of our work force, were underpaid. Why should a nurse earn less than half the wage earned by, for example, a computer engineer when a nurse must undergo the same length of training? Why should a cook or cleaner earn less than £70 a week? It is because over the years they have


learnt their skills in the home. I should have thought that that would count for as much as if those skills had been learnt anywhere else.
Recently, the Legal and General Assurance Society Limited, in a survey, calculated, by using employment agencies' average fees for given jobs, that the commercial rate for housewives' work is £279 a week, or £14,531 per annum. That is similar to the pay that Members of Parliament receive, and—I am generous to Opposition Members — perhaps their hours are similar, but housewives certainly do not receive that pay.
The Bill would not resolve overnight the discrimination built up by our job structure over the years. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Barking would be the first to realise that. My hon. Friend has detailed many clauses that provide a sensible framework with which we can go on the offensive. The Bill places a duty on Government Departments, local authorities and all employers of 20 or more employees to operate an equal opportunities policy, to review it and to check its effectiveness. Clause 71 institutes the machinery for assessing equal value. The Equal Opportunities Commission would be empowered to take proceedings against the recalcitrant. The burden of proof would be placed on the employer, which is right, rather than on the employee. Those are all sensible proposals.
Although, because of the time factor, I have concentrated especially on a narrow aspect of the Bill, I urge hon. Members on both sides to support it. We have heard only one Conservative Member say that she would do so. That is to the shame of Conservative Members. I hope that there are some Conservative Members lurking in the Corridors of the House who will support us in the Lobby. For the first time, we have a thorough review of the equal opportunities legislation, instead of the piecemeal tinkering that has had no radical effect on the status quo.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barking has presented a single, comprehensive and legally precise Bill, which, of course, must be amended in Committee, and she would be the first to accept that. The Bill provides an excellent opportunity to make the necessary amendments and is an important step in the fight against continued discrimination and obstacles to equality faced by women and men. It will redress and eliminate much of the disadvantage faced by so many members of our society based on sex, marital status and sexuality. The time has come for hon. Members to dispel the myth—although we have seen some evidence of that not working today—that men believe that they have something to lose by the liberation of women.
We pride ourselves on being a civilised and tolerant society but deny half its members the opportunity to enjoy the basic equality that we take for granted. Legislation is needed now more than ever when unemployment and cuts in welfare services are hitting women hardest. They work for the same reasons as men—because they and their families need the income to make ends meet. Many women need and want to work and they have the right to do so. They look to the House for consideration and protection. It is up to both sides not to fail them.

Mrs. Marion Roe: Having stood against the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) in the 1979 general election, I know that she is an experienced and sincere champion of women's rights and I have a deep respect for the conviction and purpose in her campaign to secure greater commitment to equality of opportunity in social, economic and political life. I say that despite the fact that she denied me the opportunity to represent her constituents.
The hon. Member for Barking also understands that equality begins at home. She has fought vigorously to lead her own party out of the wilderness towards the recognition of women in policy making. I have no doubt that the formidable talent that she now brings to the Opposition Front Bench has been honed and polished by debate within her party.
I am surprised, therefore, that the hon. Member, as a seasoned campaigner on women's rights, seeks to introduce a measure which, despite the undoubted sincerity of its sentiments, is so badly flawed in its practical application. There is one fundamental misconception. The hon. Member seeks to legislate for a change of attitude of mind, thus promoting equality at the expense of opportunity. In seeking to impose equality between the sexes she will succeed merely in restricting it to a tiny minority of women.
Long gone are the days when women were constitutionally confined to the Strangers Gallery while a few brave men struggled timorously to argue on their behalf. Today we are not debating just the principle of equality of opportunity between the sexes. We are trying to find a practical solution to attitudes which lag so far behind the economic and social reality of women in the 1980s. In so doing, we must confront not just the attitudes of men but even more, the attitudes of women about themselves.
Enlightened attitudes can follow only from an understanding that men and women are equal but not the same. The human difficulties of attitudes and prejudices are not confined to individuals. They are pervasive in professional associations, trade unions, clubs and societies. In this context, I should add, however, that I am privileged to be an honorary life member of a working men's club. As reflected by the number of hon. Members qualified by their sex to speak today, the highest learning curve perhaps lies in our political parties, in which women remain the exception rather than the norm.
The route to changed attitudes is not through legislation imposed from above. That is a singularly naive and undemocratic path, the end result of which is likely to be greater but more hidden discrimination, to the detriment of all women.

Ms. Clare Short: The logic of the hon. Member's argument is that the existing Sex Discrimination Act and Race Relations Act should be repealed. Is that her view?

Mrs. Roe: It is not.
I doubt that there is a woman Member of this House who has not felt some degree of discrimination. I am sure that every woman here can recall her feeling during the candidate's selection procedures when it becomes evident that some people have great difficulty in envisaging a woman assuming what is traditionally a man's job. But we


cannot then proceed to insist that there should be a legally fixed quota of women selected and even elected for every party. Those of us who have broken the barrier must persuade and enable greater numbers of women to put themselves forward for elected office at all levels of Government. The route to reforming attitudes is not through coercion, but through education, persuasion and example.
I should now like to deal with my second concern about the measure before the House. By addressing itself to the symptoms of discrimination the Sex Equality Bill delivers an own goal. In fact, it defeats its very purpose. I refer specifically to those aspects of clauses 6 to 9 that are relevant to the proposed obligation of employers. The hon. Member for Barking will know that three quarters of women at work are still concentrated in the clerical, older service and retailing operations, sectors of employment where wages are traditionally lower. In those female-dominated occupations the idea of the hypothetical man for pay comparisons will be extremely difficult to realise and will not help those industries to overcome the problems of recession.
Clause 6, which withdraws exemptions from small businesses, is another aspect of the same problem. Women working in small businesses, where profit margins are tight, could quickly be priced out of their jobs. If a small firm has an all-female staff the consequences would certainly be rapid and fatal. The women of this country will not thank the hon. Member for Barking if the price of her statutory equality for the few is a loss of jobs for many.
It is with some considerable regret that I must make these serious criticisms because the Bill raises a number of issues where, in a different form, I could sympathise with its objectives.
The hon. Member knows that in its present form her measure cannot succeed, so she has thrown the baby out with the bath water. With great respect, I would caution her that the sheer breadth of her measure means that many vital issues confronting women today will not be properly examined by the House. We can only respond to the generality of the Bill or pick up one or two specific points.
I urge the lion. Member to think again before she risks undermining the credibility of informed and intelligent debate on effective measures to promote equality of opportunity between the sexes.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: I should like to thank the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) for giving us the opportunity to debate the continuing extent of institutional sexism in our society. The hon. Lady said in her opening remarks that she could spend her whole speech talking about the educational aspect. I shall try to do that as briefly as I can.
The cultural sexism, which is endemic in our society, appears to be produced and is also reproduced within our education system itself. How can we through better educational practice change that position? Indeed, the Secretary of State for Education and Science addressed himself to this subject recently. I hope that Conservative local education authorities will heed his speech on that subject.
While most educational research at primary level shows that girls exhibit what the educational psychologists would describe as "learning-appropriate behaviour" to an extent

equal or better than that of boys, by the time they reach the end of the education system the position is reversed. I should like to spend my time concentrating on this disparity in education. The change seems to be most noticeable when subject options are taken in the fourth year.
If one examines how girls progress through the education system, one sees that they have less A-level provision and a lack of access to higher education and careers in education. The participation rate of women in higher education is reducing.
We have to contrast that end of the system with what appears to be the position at primary school and pinpoint the factors in school that create and aggravate discrimination. We cannot separate provision within schools from what occurs in the wider society and we have to look at the influences in school and society that reproduce sexism in schools. I am glad that the Secretary of State for Education and Science has joined us.
A report was produced recently by the Equal Opportunities Commission in Wales and the Clwyd education authority entitled "Equal Opportunities and the Secondary School Curriculum". That report provides the opportunity for LEAs throughout Britain to look in detail at their provision in schools and at ways of making adjustments.
The figures for Clwyd reflect the overall position in Britain. They show a 50 per cent. male option and a 19 per cent. female option for physics, a 50 per cent. female option and a 24 per cent. male option for biology, a 28 per cent. female option and a 14 per cent. male option for Welsh, and a 47 per cent. female option and a 5·2 per cent. male option for home economics. The distinction between options, which some hon. Members seem to imply has been reduced, still appears to be fairly clear.
There does not seem to be much to choose between the attainments of girls and boys at primary school and in the early years of secondary education, but the position changes from the third and fourth years of secondary education.

Mrs. Angela Rumbold: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that recent research on the subject shows that, despite all the efforts made in education to iron out differences of treatment between girls and boys, the girls still revert to the subjects to which the hon. Gentleman referred and the boys take on physics and other subjects? There seems to be little that we can do to encourage girls to take different subjects.

Mr. Thomas: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I know of her experience of education policy matters outside the House. However, I must quarrel with her, because we must ask why, despite recent attempts by LEAs to develop an anti-sexist policy in schools, that approach has not yet worked through the school system. There seems to be a socialisation within schools, that tends to perpetuate discrimination.

Ms. Harman: Her Majesty's Inspectorate stated recently that schools channel girls into subjects regarded as appropriate for them and channel boys into subjects regarded as appropriate for them. The HMI suggested that that should be corrected. The education cuts that the Government are imposing will make it more difficult to make changes to allow girls and boys to do the subjects that they are best at and in which they are most interested.

Mr. Thomas: I am grateful for that intervention. The inspectorate and the report to which I have referred say that the school system, whether it be in the classroom, career guidance or in the organisation of the school, tends strongly to result in discrimination and to make girls revert to traditional subjects. The effect of unemployment on school leavers makes that much worse.
We must encourage local education authorities to examine their practice with regard to policy and individual schools. The report to which I have referred found that girls were not able to opt for mathematics. One school in Clwyd put on extra classes at lunch time for girls and the class was filled to capacity. It is possible to be progressive in regard to single-sex classes for subjects that girls have not traditionally pursued.
One of the problems is that the eternal classroom practice of many teachers appears to be sexist. I ask my hon. Friends in the teaching profession to consider that. The report shows that, although a teacher attempted to involve the entire class in practical science demonstrations, only the boys ended up being involved. The report also shows that teachers asked boys to respond in class 23 times whereas girls were asked to respond only six times. Such instances might appear trivial, but when such actions are normal practice they amount to institutional sexism of the most discriminatory type.
At A level there is an imbalance with regard to mathematics, physics, biology and languages. The reproduction of sexist stereotypes persists in careers advice. We tend to see only male characters in the brochures and men are always depicted in positions of authority. Such criticisms are familiar with regard to primary school books. The rampant sexism which used to be common in children's books has now been partly corrected as new texts have been produced. Such changes still remain to be made in careers texts and many of the prospectuses which are made available to parents.
I also ask my colleagues in the teaching profession to consider the often sexist role of the head teacher who dominates a school. The male image associated with mathematics and science contributes to the option which is made by boys and not made by girls.
The hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mrs. McCurley) attacked the possibility of paternity leave on the principle that women are always away having babies. The Clwyd study found that, in 1981–82, only 3 per cent. of full-time teachers took maternity leave. The same figure was true for the second year. At the same time, 1·5 per cent. of men were absent from work for between one month and 12 months. The same was true for women. Therefore, only a fraction of full-time women teachers are on maternity leave at a given time.
There should be positive discrimination to ensure that the gross imbalance between male and female teachers is corrected. That is especially true for the crucial posts of deputy head and head. That requires a non-sexist and non-racist policy.
We must consider the full range of sexism in education. The Department of Education and Science has started to do that on a national level. The Department should clearly state an anti-sexist policy. We are still waiting for a commitment to anti-racist policies at national level. Local education authorities have a right to expect a policy lead from the Department of Education and Science. We also have a right to expect local education authorities and each school to examine their practice to ensure that they are not

reproducing inequalities which are inherent in society. Sheila Browne, a former chief inspector of schools, suggested that to a Select Committee of this House in the previous Session.

Mr. Michael Howard: In deference to your request to be brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall confine my remarks to one point and one question that I should like to address to Opposition Members.
The point is about the elimination provided by the measure of exemption for small businesses from the employment provisions of the Sex Discrimination Act that it presently contained in the statute. That matter was touched on by my hon. Friends the Members for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mrs. McCurley) and for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe). Its importance cannot be overemphasised.
One of the greatest deterrents to small businesses is the extent to which legislation heaps increasing burdens upon them. The measure would impose upon them a burden that many of them would be unable to sustain. It combines with the elimination of the exemption the imposition of an unequivocal burden of proof upon the employer. Employers could be taken to an industrial tribunal by employees, often on specious complaints of sex discrimination. A small employer could spend days, indeed weeks, at an industrial tribunal. He could win his case and find that there was no business to return to. It is to small businesses that we must look increasingly for future employment prospects, not least for women. Undoubtedly women would lose and their interest would be damaged if the measure were to be passed and the exemption were to be removed.

Ms. Harman: Are not the Government obliged to change the law on that point anyway, because the European Court ruled that our equality laws fall foul of European-wide standards in that respect? Is it not true that on the continent, when there is no exemption, small businesses have found no difficulty with the provision? Is it not the Government's economic policies that are causing so much difficulty for small businesses and driving nearly all of them out of business?

Mr. Howard: None of the points made by the hon. Lady is true. Anyone who has contact with those who run small businesses and who knows of the problems that they encounter, will know that such a legislative burden is a great deterrent to employment prospects, not least for women.

Mr. Powley: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree with the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, which was appalled, when industry and commerce is only just beginning to recover from the worst recession in 50 years, that proposals should be made to impose further costly and time-consuming burdens on businesses? —[AN HON. MEMBER: "What do that lot know?"] That lot are likely to know more about the problems encountered in small businesses than the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman).

Ms. Richardson: rose——

Mr. Marlow: rose——

Mr. Howard: I am surrounded by hon. Members who wish to intervene. I said that I would be brief, so I shall not give way.
The question that I should like to ask Opposition Members is as follows. They have said much in the debate about the need to change attitudes and to persuade. The hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson), in an article in Labour Weekly on 25 November, said a great deal about the need for patient explanations and challenging people's assumptions. I agree with that.
Conscious as they are of the need to change attitudes and to give patient explanations, no doubt Opposition Members will have read in The Guardian of 28 November a report of how SOGAT 82 was given three months by the Glasgow industrial tribunal in which to reorganise its methods of operation after being held guilty of deliberate sex discrimination and after one of its employees was awarded nearly £4,000 in compensation. How many Opposition Members have tried to explain to SOGAT 82 that its attitudes need to be changed? How many of them have made representations to SOGAT 82? Would they not do far better to spend their time persuading their allies and paymasters to comply with the existing law rather than bringing forward misconceived measures for extending it?

Mr. Guy Barnett: I am grateful to have this opportunity, late in the debate, to offer my wholehearted support to my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) in bringing forward this interesting and important Bill. She herself admitted, and many hon. Members on both sides of the House have agreed, that it is by no means perfect. There are clearly areas that would benefit from detailed debate. I do not believe, however, that anyone who believes in sex equality could vote against the Bill before the House has had an opportunity to debate the many details that will require attention. On the understanding that a Second Reading debate should be about the general principle of the Bill, almost everyone who has spoken, including the Minister, should have given a general welcome to the Bill and expressed a readiness to discuss its details in Committee so that it becomes a piece of legislation that will really advance the cause of sex equality.
My hon. Friend has given the Government a magnificent opportunity to put their money where their mouth is. They will have an opportunity to raise their objections in Committee — together, no doubt, with many hon. Members who have made important points this morning—and so to improve my hon. Friend's Bill. I am sure that my hon. Friend, as well as many of us on this side of the House, would welcome constructive suggestions. I propose now to make one myself.
Some areas covered in the Bill need urgent attention. They include homeworking. In many constituencies, homeworking is nothing short of a scandal. Attention must be given to equality between the sexes in all areas of work. My hon. Friend has also included reference to pension rights—another area where greater equality is needed. Those provisions alone should entitle the Bill to go forward. I cannot understand the mentality of hon. Members who, because they have detailed objections of one kind or another to one part or another of a very comprehensive Bill—and they are perfectly entitled to them—would deny it any further progress.
I should like to answer the point about small businesses. When I was a junior member of the previous Labour Government I had much to do with the encouragement of small businesses. Indeed, the previous Labour

Government did much to help them. It is disgraceful that Conservative Members should suggest that small businesses should be given some special dispensation to allow them to become bad employers.

Mr. Howard: rose——

Mr. Barnett: I do not see why any self-respecting small business man should want to obtain such privileges. I believe that small business men have more self-respect than that, and would want to be regarded as good employers.

Mr. Powley: rose——

Mr. Barnett: There are very good reasons for taking seriously the arguments put forward about the need for extending maternity leave and for introducing a right to paternity leave. As the father of two children, I believe that the father's role can be very important at the time of childbirth, particularly if there are one or more children in the family. The father can be of particular importance then. The demands of employment are not so important that they should deny the importance of family life. During the period surrounding childbirth, the role of both parents can be crucial to the development of the family as a whole.
One issue has commanded attention but demands more. However, my comments may involve criticism of the Bill. In November 1979, the Manpower Services Commission brought out a report, which said:
For most girls and women equality of opportunity is not yet a reality although promoted and protected by legislation. There are skill shortages in areas of employment to which women at present do not normally gain access. The Manpower Services Commission's surveys have identified shortages in skilled, manual and craft jobs. Schemes should be encouraged, particularly in the manual field to provide basic training which will enable women to tackle unfamiliar tasks.
I welcome clause 56 in particular, which proposes to lay upon every Department, local authority and employer a duty to conduct their work or business so as
to promote equality of opportunity in conformity with this Act".
I am delighted with that. However, I should like to know whether it includes such bodies as the MSC. Of course, it is not a Government Department or a local authority, and I should like to be sure that it, as well as the Training Services Agency, will have that duty laid upon it. That is very important, for the reasons set out in the 1979 MSC report. The figures for training in skillcentres in the greater London area demonstrate the importance of that. Recently, I tabled some questions to the Department of Employment and received the following disturbing information. In the greater London area, 921 men but only 63 women are undergoing courses at skillcentres. Therefore, we must take the training of women seriously.
I shall give the House several reasons that cause me to believe that this is important. First, new technology is resulting, and in future is bound to result, in the disappearance of areas of traditional women's employment. That means that there must be a widening of opportunities for women in skillcentres and other forms of training and the maximum measure of encouragement of women who wish to take them up.
I heard a story recently which disturbed me considerably. One of my constituents, a young woman, went to a jobcentre and asked whether she could be trained as a plumber.

Mr. Powley: What?

Mr. Barnett: It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman says, "What?" It seems that that is the most extraordinary thing that he has ever heard. The young woman wished to be trained as a plumber. The person behind the desk said, "You know, it is a very dirty job." She replied, "That doesn't worry me." He added, "You know that you will have to wear an apron and boots." Again she replied, "That doesn't worry me." He added, "You may get your fingernails torn as a consequence of doing a job like that." She replied, "That does not worry me either." In trying further to put her off he said, "You will have to work among men." "That is fine," she said. He went on, "Some of them will use foul language."

Mr. Powley: rose——

Mr. Barnett: No, I shall not give way. In response to that, my constituent, I am sorry to say, used an unparliamentary four letter word, the repetition of which in this place would incur your displeasure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and no doubt the displeasure of this male-dominated Chamber. There was a fat lot of encouragement for my constituent who wanted to enter a non-traditional area of employment. She wished to put her name forward as a possible trainee for a job in an area in which there is a need for many qualified people.
I asked the Secretary of State for Employment what I believed to be an important question—to what degree local authorities are funding creche facilities in skillcentres. The response that I received from the Under-Secretary of State on 30 November was as follows:
There are no nursery or creche facilities in skillcentres." —[Official Report, 30 November 1983, Vol. 49, c. 530.]
I shall add to that answer by saying that when the London boroughs of Greenwich, Southwark and Lewisham offered to fund such facilities to enable women with small babies to undertake courses of training, they were refused the possibility of doing so by the MSC.
It seems that girls are actively discouraged from entering non-traditional areas of employment and that the MSC has set its face against nursery and creche facilities, even to the extent of denying to local authorities the offer that they make to provide them. That suggests that an enormous amount more needs to be done to encourage the development of training and employment of women in non-traditional areas. For the reasons that I have given, I believe that a great deal more needs to be done. I hope that one of the consequences of the Bill will be to extend the possibilities for women to enter those areas of employment.
The Bill is vital. It covers a variety of areas in which there is a need for progress. It would be a tremendous shame if the House, or some Members, attempted to vote it down and to deny the opportunity, perhaps for years to come, to extend legislation to promote sex equality in Britain.
I deny completely, on the basis of experience, the suggestion that legislation has nothing to do with the social progress described in the Bill. The record of race relations legislation is clear on this, and significant advances have been made as a consequence of that legislation. After the Race Relations Act was passed, everyone knew that the general attitude in Britain, apart from what the law may say, denied that there was a place for racial discrimination in Britain. The passage of this Bill, together with the two Acts that have been mentioned, would have an enormously important effect on public opinion, on the behaviour of

Government Departments, upon local authorities and on large and small employers. As the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Thomas) said, it will have an effect where legislation does not operate as a sanction, for example, in the classroom and in a variety of other areas.
I have no hesitation in voting for the Second Reading of the Bill, and I hope that it will be passed so that its details can be discussed in full in Committee.

Ms. Richardson: rose in her place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 118, Noes 198.

Division No. 93]
[2.25 pm


AYES


Anderson, Donald
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Hoyle, Douglas


Ashton, Joe
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Janner, Hon Greville


Barnett, Guy
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Barron, Kevin
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Bell, Stuart
Lamond, James


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Leighton, Ronald


Bidwell, Sydney
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Blair, Anthony
McCartney, Hugh


Boyes, Roland
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Maclennan, Robert


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
McNamara, Kevin


Caborn, Richard
McWilliam, John


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Madden, Max


Canavan, Dennis
Marek, Dr John


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Maynard, Miss Joan


Cartwright, John
Meacher, Michael


Clay, Robert
Meadowcroft, Michael


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Michie, William


Cohen, Harry
Mikardo, Ian


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Corbett, Robin
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Nellist, David


Craigen, J. M.
O'Brien, William


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Park, George


Deakins, Eric
Pavitt, Laurie


Dobson, Frank
Pendry, Tom


Dormand, Jack
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Dubs, Alfred
Radice, Giles


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Randall, Stuart


Eastham, Ken
Richardson, Ms Jo


Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n SE)
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Fatchett, Derek
Rogers, Allan


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Rooker, J. W.


Flannery, Martin
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Ryman, John


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Sedgemore, Brian


George, Bruce
Sheerman, Barry


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Gould, Bryan
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Skinner, Dennis


Harman, Ms Harriet
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Soley, Clive


Haynes, Frank
Spearing, Nigel


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Strang, Gavin


Heffer, Eric S.
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Wareing, Robert






Weetch, Ken



Welsh, Michael
Tellers for the Ayes:


Winnick, David
Ms. Clare Short and Miss Betty Boothroyd.


Young, David (Bolton SE)





NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Alexander, Richard
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Fletcher, Alexander


Ancram, Michael
Forth, Eric


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Fox, Marcus


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Freeman, Roger


Baldry, Anthony
Gale, Roger


Bellingham, Henry
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Berry, Sir Anthony
Glyn, Dr Alan


Best, Keith
Goodlad, Alastair


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gow, Ian


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Ground, Patrick


Body, Richard
Grylls, Michael


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bottomley, Peter
Hanley, Jeremy


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Harvey, Robert


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Hayes, J.


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hayhoe, Barney


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Hayward, Robert


Brooke, Hon Peter
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Browne, John
Henderson, Barry


Bruinvels, Peter
Hickmet, Richard


Butcher, John
Hind, Kenneth


Butterfill, John
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Carttiss, Michael
Holt, Richard


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hooson, Tom


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hordern, Peter


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Clarke Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Colvin, Michael
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Coombs, Simon
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Cope, John
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Couchman, James
Jessel, Toby


Critchley, Julian
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Dorrell, Stephen
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
King, Rt Hon Tom


Dunn, Robert
Knowles, Michael


Durant, Tony
Lamont, Norman


Eggar, Tim
Lang, Ian


Emery, Sir Peter
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Eyre, Reginald
Lee, John (Pendle)


Fallon, Michael
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Farr, John
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Favell, Anthony
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)





Lilley, Peter
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Scott, Nicholas


Luce, Richard
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Lyell, Nicholas
Shelton, William (Streatham)


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Silvester, Fred


Macfarlane, Neil
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


MacGregor, John
Soames, Hon Nicholas


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Speed, Keith


Macmillan, Rt Hon M.
Spence, John


McQuarrie, Albert
Spencer, D.


Major, John
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Malins, Humfrey
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Maples, John
Squire, Robin


Marland, Paul
Stanbrook, Ivor


Marlow, Antony
Stanley, John


Mather, Carol
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Mellor, David
Stradling Thomas, J.


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Montgomery, Fergus
Temple-Morris, Peter


Moore, John
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Moynihan, Hon C.
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Murphy, Christopher
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S;


Needham, Richard
Thornton, Malcolm


Neubert, Michael
Thurnham, Peter


Newton, Tony
Tracey, Richard


Nicholls, Patrick
Trippier, David


Onslow, Cranley
Twinn, Dr Ian


Page, John (Harrow W)
Viggers, Peter


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Waddington, David


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Patten, John (Oxford)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Pattie, Geoffrey
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Wall, Sir Patrick


Pollock, Alexander
Ward, John


Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Powell, William (Corby)
Watson, John


Powley, John
Watts, John


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Proctor, K. Harvey
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Wheeler, John


Rathbone, Tim
Whitney, Raymond


Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)
Wolfson, Mark


Renton, Tim
Wood, Timothy


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)



Roe, Mrs Marion
Tellers for the Noes:


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Mr. Ivan Lawrence and Mr. Michael Howard.


Sackville, Hon Thomas

Question accordingly negatived.

Private Members' Bills

ANATOMY BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 16 December.

ROAD TRAFFIC (DRIVING INSTRUCTION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 16 December.

TOBACCO PRODUCTS (CONTROL OF ADVERTISING, SPONSORSHIP AND SALES PROMOTION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 23 March.

OCCUPATIONAL PENSION SCHEMES BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 13 April.

PARTNERSHIP IN YOUTH SERVICE BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 9 March.

ELECTORAL FINANCE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Second Reading what day? No day named.

EMPHYSEMA (COMPENSATION OF COALMINERS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

PEOPLE'S RIGHT TO FUEL BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 3 February.

JURIES (DISQUALIFICATION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 16 December.

LOTTERIES (AMENDMENT) BILL [LORDS]

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day?

Mr. John Watson: Friday 16 December.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. Member have the authority of the hon. Member whose Bill this is?

Mr. Watson: I have the authority of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark).

Second Reading deferred till Friday 16 December.

CRIMINAL LAW ACT 1977 (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 16 March.

CHRONICALLY SICK AND DISABLED PERSONS (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading—[18 November].

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 16 December.

CARAVAN AND TENT SITES BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 6 July.

TRADE MARKS ACT 1938 (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading—[11 November].

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 16 December.

AGRICULTURE (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 16 December.

Select Committees

SELECT COMMITTEES (GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question —[18 December]—That Standing Order No. 99 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended, as follows:
Paragraph 2, in the Table, item 1, leave out '9' and insert '11'.
Paragraph 2, in the Table, item 3, leave out '9' and insert '11'
Paragraph 2, in the Table, item 4, leave out '9' and insert '11'.
Paragraph 2, in the Table, leave out item 9.
Paragraph 2, in the Table, after item 11, leave out '9' and '11'.
Paragraph 2, in the Table, after item 11, insert 'Trade and Industry/Department of Trade and Industry/11/3'.

Line 20, leave out 'Industry and Trade' and insert 'Trade and Industry'.

Line 38, at end insert—
'(d) to communicate to any other such committee its evidence and any other documents relating to matters of common interest, and
(e) to meet concurrently with any other such committee for the purposes of deliberating, taking evidence, or considering draft reports.'—[Mr. Biffen.]

It being after half-past Two o'clock, and objection being taken to further proceeding, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed on 12 December.

DEFENCE

Motion made,
That Sir Humphrey Atkins, Mr. John Cartwright, Mr. Churchill, Mr. Dick Douglas, Mr. Bruce George, Dr. John Gilbert, Mr. Edward Leigh, Mr. Michael Marshall, Mr. Michael Mates, Mr. Keith Speed and Mr. Neil Thorne be members of the Defence Committee. —[Sir Philip Holland, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Objection taken.

ENERGY

Ordered,
That Mr. Kevin Barron, Dr. Michael Clark, Mr. J. D. Concannon, Mr. Robert Hayward, Mr. Ted Leadbitter, Mr. Ian Lloyd, Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse, Mr. Gerald Malone, Mr. Michael Morris, Mr. Peter Rost and Mr. Tony Speller be members of the Energy Committee.—[Sir Philip Holland, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

ENVIRONMENT

Ordered,
That Mr. Richard Alexander, Mr. David Alton, Mr. Sydney Chapman, Mr. Reginald Eyre, Mr. Reg Freeson, Mr. Robert B. Jones, Mr. Norman Miscampbell, Mr. Allan Roberts, Sir Hugh Rossi, Mr. Chris Smith and Mr. John Mark Taylor be members of the Environment Committee. — [Sir Philip Holland, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

FOREIGN AFFAIRS

Ordered,
That Mr. Dennis Canavan, Sir Anthony Kershaw, Mr. Ivan Lawrence, Mr. Jim Lester, Mr. Ian Mikardo, Mr. Mark

Robinson, Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas, Mr. Nigel Spearing, Mr. Peter Thomas, Mr. Bowen Wells and Mr. Michael Welsh be members of the Foreign Affairs Committee. —[Sir Philip Holland, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

HOME AFFAIRS

Ordered,
That Mr. Gerald Bermingham, Miss Janet Fookes, Sir Edward Gardner, Mr. Jeremy Hanley, Mr. John Hunt, Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk, Mr. Fergus Montgomery, Clare Short, Mr. Ivor Stanbrook, Mr. John Wheeler and Mr. David Winnick be members of the Home Affairs Committee. — [Sir Philip Holland, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

INDUSTRY AND TRADE

Ordered,
That Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones, Mr. Stan Crowther, Sir Peter Emery, Mr. Robert McCrindle, Mr. Michael Martin, Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop, Mr. Geoffrey Robinson, Mr. Martin Stevens, Mr. Teddy Taylor, Mr. Charles Wardle and Mr. Kenneth Warren be members of the Industry and Trade Committee.—[Sir Philip Holland, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

SCOTTISH AFFAIRS

Ordered,
That Mr. Malcolm Bruce, Mr. Tom Clarke, Mr. John Conic, Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn, Mr. Michael Forsyth, Dr. Norman A. Godman, Mr. Barry Henderson, Mr. Michael Hirst, Mr. David Lambie, Mrs. Anna McCurley, Mr. William McKelvey, Sir Hector Monro and Mr. Bill Walker be members of the Scottish Affairs Committee. — [Sir Philip Holland, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

TRANSPORT

Ordered,
That Mr. Gordon A. T. Bagier, Mr. David Gilroy Bevan, Mr. Sydney Bidwell, Mr. Harry Cowans, Mr. Den Dover, Mr. Peter Fry, Mr. Roger King, Mr. David Mudd, Mr. Matthew Parris, Mr. Stephen Ross and Mr. Neville Trotter be members of the Transport Committee.—[Sir Philip Holland, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

TREASURY AND CIVIL SERVICE

Ordered,
That Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark, Mr. John Browne, Mr Nicholas Budgen, Mr. Mark Fisher, Mr. Terence L. Higgins, Mr. Ralph Howell, Mr. Peter Lilley, Mr. Austin Mitchell, Mr. Brian Sedgemore, Mr. John Townend and Mr. Richard Wainwright be members of the Treasury and Civil Service Committee.—[Sir Philip Holland, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

WELSH AFFAIRS

Motion made,
That Mr. Robert Harvey, Mr. Tom Hooson, Mr. Peter Hubbard-Miles, Mr. Gwilym Jones, Dr. John Marek, Sir Anthony Meyer, Mr. Keith Raffan, Mr. Stefan Terlezki, Dr. Roger Thomas, Mr. Gareth Wardell and Mr. Dafydd Wigley be members of the Welsh Affairs Committee. — [Sir Philip Holland, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Objection taken.

Nurses (Accommodation)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Archie Hamilton.]

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: The last debate on this subject was on 29 July, when the hon. Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) made a speech based on information provided mainly by the Royal College of Nursing and the Nursing Mirror. My facts emanate from the same source and from the union that sponsors me as a Member of Parliament — the Confederation of Health Service Employees.
In replying to that debate, the Minister did not deny any of the facts disclosed by the hon. Member for Suffolk, South. He sought to argue, however, that because only one nurse in 10 lived in the inadequate accommodation complained of, such a small scandal—the way in which 48,000 of our nurses lived—need not cause too much anxiety. He said that student nurses formed the larger part of that total and automatically received an abatement of 40 per cent. of any lodging charges, plus a further 40 per cent. abatement if the accommodation was substandard, so that there was a clear link between charges and value for money in the accommodation provided.
The Minister's argument on that occasion must be heavily qualified in two respects. First, I understand that the additional 40 per cent. abatement is available to a nurse only if she or he is willing to share a bedroom with another nurse, which hardly any of them do. If the Minister has figures to contradict that, I shall be glad to hear them.
Secondly, it is no excuse to say that the rent is abated if the accommodation is substandard. As the Minister said, the majority of people concerned are students. They are also cheap labour in our hospitals because they work on the wards. I speak from long family experience in these matters. The accommodation in which they are expected to eat, sleep and study must be adequate for all those purposes.
The Minister said in July that 70 per cent. of the nurses covered by the Nursing Mirror survey said
that their accommodation provided fair to excellent value for money."—[Official Report, 29 July 1983; Vol. 46, c. 1472.]
The implication was that the majority of nurses thought that their accommodation was pretty good. The facts are rather different. Only 5 per cent. of the respondents said that their accommodation was excellent, 30 per cent. thought that it was good, 35 per cent. described it as fair, 24 per cent. said that it was poor and 6 per cent. said that it was intolerable. In other words, far from 70 per cent. regarding it as OK, 65 per cent. described their accommodation as fair to intolerable. I suspect that that is a far more accurate assessment of the figures than that which the Minister sought to convey. It is no use the Minister shaking his head. I have the facts and figures from the Nursing Mirror survey, so he cannot deny them.
The figures show how foolish it is to treat any statistics given by any Minister on anything with other than the greatest suspicion and cynicism. They never tell downright lies, but without exception, from the top to the bottom, they never ever tell the whole truth about anything.
The point is further highlighted by the fact that the Minister failed to mention in July that the Nursing Mirror survey was carried out before many health boards had had time to implement backdated rent increases. The hon.

Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Irving) intervened in that debate to remind the House that whenever nurses received a modest pay increase the charges for their accommodation were increased, often taking half or even more of the wage increase. Those increased charges do not relate in any way to the value or quality of the accommodation provided.
Further to buttress his arguments in July the Minister passed the buck to local health authorities. He said that they were responsible for providing the accommodation, for keeping it up to standard and for inspecting it. Meanwhile, he said, new guidelines on these matters would be put to the health authorities next year and the Rayner study on National Health Service accommodation in the Oxford and north-west Thames regions
should be published within the next few weeks."—[Official Report, 29 July 1983; Vol. 46, c. 1474]
That was four months ago. The Minister can look that up. He will find those exact words.
I inquired in the Library for the Rayner study. I was asked, "What Rayner study? There ain't one." The Library rang the Department which said, "Yes, we have it, but we have not published it." A copy is not available in the Vote Office. It is not available to any Member of Parliament. I suspect the reason is that the proposition will be put that all this accommodation should be privatised and that, instead of nurses or doctors being accommodated in National Health Service accommodation, they will have to apply to speculative landlords. Indeed, that point is well made in the report of the inquiry into underused and surplus property in the National Health Service, dated 1983, which says:
We suspect that for historical reasons the NHS provide too much residential accommodation and that the need for such provision requires scrutiny. We are aware that the Oxford regional health authority are undertaking a Rayner scrutiny 'to review the policies and management methods of residential property region-wide, with the aim of reducing work and improving efficiency.'
The report continues:
Valuable though this study will no doubt prove, we recommend that a further study should be instituted to examine the extent that NHS residential provision is necessary. The terms of reference for such a study should be wide enough to encompass an examination of whether the NHS or another organisation should provide residential accommodation.
I hope that the Minister when he replies will give a firm undertaking that there is no thought in the Government's mind of privatising this accommodation.
I should like to refer to the precise nature of the complaints. I shall give a few examples of the specific inadequacies of the accommodation in which 48,000 nurses live. There are six major areas of discontent and I shall enumerate them, although I cannot, in the time available, go through them all in detail.
The first area concerns the lack of secure provision. The second concerns fire hazards. The third and most common complaint made by student nurses concerns the poor facilities available for study in off-duty hours, with few reading lamps, desks and even chairs available to these girls, for whom one of the main purposes of going into the job is to gain qualifications, which entails considerable and intensive study at different hours and in different conditions. Evidence was given to the Nursing Mirror—this concerns the fourth area—that nurses were prepared to pay more for accommodation but they felt that the principle was being accepted by the Department that rents were low because accommodation was awful and there were no prospects of immediate improvement. If that is the


case, it is intolerable. The fifth area of complaint is that there appears to be an unsatisfied demand for short-term residential accommodation for trained nurses undertaking post-basic and shortened courses, often in parts of the country many miles from home. The sixth area is that, as an alternative to on-site residential accommodation, trained senior staff would appear to favour joint ownership schemes — for example, through housing association accommodations or perhaps through joint mortgage facilities with nursing friends. In the short time available to me, I shall deal only with security, fire hazard and the generally inadequate living and study facilities for student nurses.
On security, I can do no better than quote specific examples, in particular a letter received by the Nursing Mirror on 31 July from an SRN at the Great Ormond street hospital for sick children. It says:
This letter concerns security, or lack of it, in staff residences at The Hospitals For Sick Children, Gt. Ormond Street.
To date forty burglaries of nurses' rooms have occurred within the past three weeks. Reputedly someone in possession of a 'master' key to the staff residence is perpetrating the crime.
I understand that the security officer at the hospital has been sacked. I make no comment on that, because I do not know the facts. The letter goes on:
The action of one nurse has met with deadlock. On the return to her room she discovered the loss of some money and possessions. Immediately she called the police. Next morning security and administration were notified. The same afternoon, while on duty on a busy surgical ward, a security officer saw her. A rather pointless conversation followed in the middle of the ward. Eventually the nurse was able to see an administrator. Her request for locks to be changed and improved security were met with the perennial answer of 'There's no money.' Nor are we permitted to pay ourselves for new locks, because security must have duplicate keys.
That is a typical example of the security problems that nurses are facing. Another example concerns the Gartloch hospital in Glasgow. A nurse wrote that the fire escape doors in the nurses' home were all bolted in the interests of security. So the nurses can burn to death, but at least no one can get into their rooms.
There have been many letters from the Alder Hey children's hospital nurses' home in Liverpool. I shall quote only one which speaks of
rooms left wide open whilst being cleaned by domestics. Also, when the corridor was being repainted, doors were left open without supervision.
I complained of not being able to lock my window and blocks were put into the frames. Surely this does not meet with fire regulations. Fire hoses don't reach all the rooms. No facilities for an electrical fire.
So it goes on.
Probably the most worrying complaint concerns fire hazards in nurses' homes. I had first-hand experience of that in November 1981 when the nurses' home in Kirkcaldy in Fife was burnt down and a nurse died. There was an inquiry and the Fife health board has decided to restore the home and remedy the fire defects.
The cost will be about £1 million and the nurses who were accommodated there have been put up in neighbouring hotels at a cost of £120,000 a year. The board asked the Scottish Home and Health Department to foot the bill. The Department replied, "Not on your nelly. You finance it out of your general budget." As a consequence, that £120,000 has to be taken out of money that would otherwise be spent on patient care. I hope that the Scottish Office is proud of its record. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is present and I give him

notice that I shall raise this matter at the meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee in Edinburgh on Monday. I hope that he will have an adequate response.
All the grievances about fire hazards stem from the fact that all NHS property, including hospitals and nurses' homes, is regarded as Crown property and is, therefore, protected by Crown immunity, which means that owners or managers cannot be prosecuted, even for the most flagrant breaches of health and hygiene regulations.
The Crown's exemption from fire and safety laws highlights the grave implications of the high incidence of fires and electrical wiring defects which are recorded in the Nursing Mirror survey. The survey speaks of fire doors being locked on security grounds, unchecked fire fighting equipment, irregular fire drills and faulty alarm bells. That evidence points to a horrific state of affairs, which simply cannot be allowed to continue.
When the Government say that there is no money, or insufficient money, to put matters right, I repeat what I have said many times. When we were faced with the cost of a military expedition to the Falkland Islands the Prime Minister said from the Dispatch Box that, no matter what the cost, we would see it through. The cost of that expedition, now and for the future, is measured in thousands of millions of pounds. No Government can say with any credibility that the money is not available. When the Government want it, they can get cash for anything. I echo the Prime Minister. Whatever the cost, urgent and immediate steps must be taken to protect 48,000 nurses from the danger of being burnt alive in their hospital accommodation. The absurdity of Crown immunity must be ended quickly as it is a matter, literally, of life and death.
I shall now give a few examples of the living conditions that we inflict on nurses. I shall quote from a report on findings resulting from inspection of the east Glamorgan staff residence in March 1983. About the ground floor it said:
Married couple's fiat. Sitting room — decorative order poor. Inadequate electrical sockets. Window frames rusting with large damp areas around. Bedroom — tiny and in poor decorative order. No kitchen.
Still on the ground floor, the report refers to a kitchen, which is obviously not available to the married couple. It continues:
Kitchen: Very large with one domestic refrigerator and one domestic cooker in kitchen. Two domestic refrigerators in pantry area both old and dirty. Walls in state of decay with large areas of damp. No ventilator or extractor.
The report then describes the kitchen on the first floor:
One domestic cooker, one domestic refrigerator to serve one hundred people.
Of the bathrooms it says:
Large cast-iron baths, none containing a plug. Baths discoloured where surface had worn away. Side inspection panels loose or missing. Tiles chipped. Light cord two inches long. Decorative order dismal.
Of the laundry it says:
One industrial washing machine, one tumble dryer for one hundred people. No plugs in the three sinks, and water taps loose from wall.
Of the lavatories it says:
Several without seats, but otherwise clean.
How nice. That is an example from south Wales. The Alder Hey nurses home in Liverpool has one cooker for about 50 nurses and I am told than it hardly ever works. There are two fridges which are overcrowded and padlocked. To cap it all a letter from the Confederation of


Health Service Employees spelt out how easily nurses can be evicted from their NHS accommodation, arbitrarily and unfairly.
The Nursing Mirror quoted an example in Scotland of three nurses being chucked out of their accommodation because of certain irregularities which the hospital authority alleged that they had been engaged in. The nurses have no security of tenure although such accommodation might be the only place where they can live. COHSE has given me several examples.
I apologise if I am taking a long time but it is important to put such facts on the record. I do not apologise for raising these issues. I have presented only a few of the facts because time is short. I hope that the Minister will not accuse me or anyone else who is associated with the campaign of exaggeration or engaging in alarmist rhetoric. I also hope that he will not subject us to the type of complacent speech which I understand that he made to the debate of 29 July. Nor will it be sufficient for the Minister to try to pass the buck to the health authorities.
It is the Government who must provide the cash necessary to enable health authorities to bring the accommodation up to civilised and acceptable standards. Ministers—I include Scottish Ministers—should conduct a national survey to ascertain the cost of such a programme and to provide additional resources to implement it. Apart from anything else, such a scheme would provide new jobs. If the Government will not do that job, I hope that the appropriate Select Committee will do it.
There is no excuse for delay. It will be wholly unacceptable if the Government use any argument to delay the exercise to make sure that all Health Service property —hospitals and nurses' homes—has the best possible fire security arrangements and that Crown immunity for that property is ended forthwith. I hope that the Minister will give us a responsible and reasoned reply, saying that this subject must have urgent consideration and immediate action.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Does the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) have the consent of the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) and the Minister to speak?

Mr. Pavitt: Yes, Sir. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) and the Minister.
I was interested to hear that the daughter of my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) trained at Guy's hospital, where my daughter also trained. I underline his point about the importance of this issue to first-year students. He referred to whether they would continue their career after they had done so much hard work. It is important to sustain the involvement of nurses taking up that career.
My second point is about district and regional health authorities. I ask the Minister to conduct a pilot survey into minor capital works in one of the regions. In my region there has been a cut-back of £8 million. One area with low priority is minor capital works. At district level, the refurbishing of the conditions that my hon. Friend brought to the attention of the House is so low a priority that it will

not take place for at least another four or five years. I ask the Minister to consider the way in which minor capital works funds are being used.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. John Patten): There is not a great deal of time left for me to reply, although I am glad that the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) has been able to raise two important points.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland came to hear the speech by the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton). He has realised that on Monday, in the Scottish Grand Committee in Edinburgh, he might be asked questions and pressed by the hon. Gentleman on Scottish issues that the hon. Gentleman raised during his speech—that is, if the hon. Gentleman is fortunate enough to be called on Monday. I have no control over that.
The hon. Gentleman began his speech by making some generalised comments, that one can never trust any Minister. He did not discuss which Administration the Minister was from.

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: Both.

Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman said that one can never trust Ministers to use statistics properly. He ended his speech with a charming and moderately phrased request for a moderate and responsible reply from me. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's interest in the National Health Service and his detailed knowledge of the problems facing the nursing world, in which his daughter worked in the past, but he did not help his case by the exaggerated way in which he put some of the aspects of his argument. In the five minutes left to me, I cannot comment in any detail on the cases which the hon. Gentleman raised concerning certain specific nurses. The question of security is certainly very worrying. If the hon. Gentleman will write to me, giving details, chapter and verse, and the names of those involved, I shall reply immediately after I have looked into the cases. I welcome the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) to the Labour Front Bench. The hon. Member for Fife, Central referred to the fact that just before the summer recess my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo), who is not in his place, raised this issue. This afternoon I have an opportunity briefly to state whate progress has been made since the summer. In the debate in July I said that we were looking forward to receiving the report of the Rayner scrutiny on residential accommodation not only for nurses but for other NHS staff. We received the report in October, and that report on the Rayner scrutiny is itself now subject to ministerial scrutiny.
The scrutiny covers all staff accommodation, not just accommodation for nurses. It is an interesting and thought-provoking document. I cannot give firm reactions to it at the moment, because we are in the early stages of considering it ourselves, but it raises some fundamental questions.
First, it asks why the NHS provides so much residential accommodation. That is not a bad question to ask, whether we are thinking of nurses or other members of staff such as doctors. We are statute-bound to provide accommodation for some junior doctors, but the provision far exceeds the statutory requirement.
Secondly, the report questions whether the provision of residential accommodation is always necessarily the best use of NHS resources and management time. Should the financial and management resources of the NHS be devoted to this provision to such an extent? We must address ourselves to those fundamental questions. The NHS does not have to remain a snapshot photograph of what it is in 1983.
I should make it clear to the hon. Gentleman, and to the specialist journals which are interested, that I am not announcing a new Government policy. I am simply telling the House about some of the questions raised by the scrutineers. We shall have to consider the answers to those questions. In scrutinising the scrutiny we will consider the six important points to which the hon. Gentleman referred in general terms, although he only had time to go into detail on three of them.
During the six months that I have spent at the Elephant and Castle I have received the impression that the provision of residential accommodation has not always been subject to a clearly determined policy, either national or local. The Rayner report will oblige us to take a fundamental look at the provision, including that for the 10 per cent. of nurses who reside in NHS residential accommodation and about whom the hon. Gentleman, his hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South and I myself are concerned.

The Question having been proposed after half-past Two o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at thirteen minutes past Three o'clock.